Preamble

The House met at half-past Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 7th April].

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER.)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 5, after "murder" insert:
except a prisoner who murders a prison officer acting in the execution of his duty".—[Mr. Rees-Davies.]
Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

10.36 a.m.

The Chairman: Before I call the first speaker I should like to intimate that I have already learned from a number of hon. Members that they wish to try to catch my eye in this debate. Hon. Members can help each other, when they are called, if they make their speeches not too long.

Sir Richard Glyn: I will endeavour to be short, Dr. King.
The Amendment, so well presented already, seeks to preserve the present law. This law has worked well for a very long time and has saved the lives of many prison officers. How many we cannot be sure, but although tens of thousands of prison officers have been assaulted, and many hundreds violently, savagely and dangerously assaulted, for about 50 years not one has been murdered, and there is substantial evidence to show that that is a direct result of the present law and of the deterrent effect of the death penalty in this respect.
The only effect of changing the law, which will happen if the Amendment is rejected, will be further to endanger the lives of prison officers. The only practical effect of changing the law by rejecting the Amendment will be the murder of prison officers, after 50 years with no such murder having occurred.
Prison officers are the direct responsibility of the Home Office. Now that the Prison Commission has been abolished they are directly under the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for these men. They are his protégés. They look to him for protection, and they are entitled to do so. He has a duty to protect them, and I urge him not to be misled by abolitionist propaganda, which is so widespread outside the House and, I regret to say, appears to be rearing its ugly head inside the House also.
Statistics on the subject are entirely slanted against the deterrent effect of capital punishment. That fact was recognised in the Report of the Royal Commission. I shall not read from it at any length, but I want to read what I regard as an important conclusion. Paragraph 62 says:
We must now turn to the statistical evidence. This has for the most part been assembled by those who would abolish the death penalty; their object has been to disprove the deterrent value claimed for that punishment.
That was true then and it is true now.
Societies exist and many dedicated people work feverishly to slant these statistics to disprove the deterrent effect of capital punishment, but there is no contrary campaign or organisation. Since the Bill came on to the Floor of the House many of my hon. Friends have received letters from people offering support—sometimes financial support—to a society which would work to retain capital punishment, but there is no such society.

The Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but he must confine himself to the Amendment.

Sir Richard Glyn: I was coming to that now. I do not want to go too wide in referring to a very large number of countries in which capital punishment has been restored after it had been abolished. In view of what you have


said, Dr. King, it would be wrong to list them, but a very substantial number have restored the death penalty. The information is given in the Report of the Royal Commission and included particularly are certain American States which have retained capital punishment in the case of prison officers killed by long-term prisoners. That is where I was proposing to bring this part of my argument back squarely into the four corners of the Amendment.
I hope that I may be allowed to refer to New Zealand. The Minister of State, in advocating the restoration of the death penalty after a period of abolition, quoted particularly the example of murderers who had said that a period of imprisonment for eight years was nothing and that they were prepared to murder because there was no death penalty owing to "the good Government we have in."
That is exactly the position which will arise if this Amendment is rejected. That is exactly the danger to which prison officers will be exposed. A great weight of evidence has been published but has not been considered because the whole weight of propaganda comes from people who are against capital punishment. The part of the published evidence which is inconvenient to them has been entirely ignored.
Perhaps I may read one extract from the Royal Commission's Report, because we learned last week that the Home Secretary had not informed himself of the views of the police in relation to a previous Amendment. It is right that I should ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has informed himself of the views of the prison officers—his protégés whom it is his duty to protect—on this Amendment. If the Home Secretary has not so informed himself, perhaps he will look at page 21 of the Report of the Royal Commission, paragraph 61, where it states:
Of more importance was the evidence of the representatives of the police and prison service. From them we received virtually unanimous evidence in both England and Scotland to the effect that they were convinced of the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment in its effect on professional criminals.

If the Home Secretary has made inquiries, and has found that the views of prison officers have changed in the few years since they gave that evidence, no doubt he will tell the Committee. If he cannot do so, I suggest that the evidence stands today.
These prison officers are exposed to great danger. They are assaulted regularly, far more often than the Home Office imagined or knew about when this Bill was first presented and when the Home Office and the Cabinet decided to support it. The Home Office has not a clue about how much these men are being knocked about, and how seriously they were being injured and the dangers to which they are exposed, although, of course, up to the present none has been killed in prison. Because of this complete lack of knowledge, the first Questions on this subject were answered by the Home Office with Answers which were absolutely wrong and misleading. I do not say they were intentionally misleading, but they were wrong in circumstances so striking that I must deal with them.
On 8th February, in a Written Answer to a Question, the hon. Lady the Minister of State for the Home Department—I have given her notice that I propose to raise this matter—stated—I will not bother to read more than a few of the figures which she gave, they are all wrong and the totals are much too small—that the total number of assaults in 1959 was 130 and, in 1960, 140. Those figures are about 70 per cent. wrong. They represent a little over half of the true position. For 1963, for which the hon. Lady said afterwards that she would produce complete figures, the number of serious assaults was stated to be only 27. The correct answer is that there were nearly 50 in that year. This is a measure of the lack of knowledge by the Home Office of what is being done to the protégés of that Department.

10.45 a.m.

The Minister of State for the Home Department: (Miss Alice Bacon)rose—

Sir Richard Glyn: Perhaps it would be more helpful if the hon. Lady waited before intervening, so that she may know what she has to face. There is more to come.
On 10th February the debate in the Standing Committee on this very Amendment continued on the incorrect figures which the Home Office had given. The hon. Lady was pressed and she admitted a mistake in these words:
I must apologise to the hon. Member. I have been informed that the figures which were given in the OFFICIAL REPORT last week were slightly in error.
Apparently the hon. Lady had been informed on 9th February. She went on to say that the figure of 120 which was given for 1963 should have been 157. That was still wrong. Apart from that the figure did not include the borstal figures.
The hon. Lady also said:
I want to be quite honest about this—there was another slight error also"…— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 10th February, 1965; c. 62]
I should not have thought that a representative of the Home Office would have dared to describe that error as being slight.
On 16th February we had something approaching the truth. For 1959, the figure of 130 was altered to 223. For 1960, instead of 140 the figure was 222. I will not go through the whole list; they are all wrong. For 1963, the last complete year, instead of a figure of 27 for serious assaults, there is a figure of 44. The figures for borstals are given quite separately and it is shown that substantial assaults and serious assaults were also committed there.
The hon. Lady wrote me a letter on 16th February. She did not correct the incorrect answer which was given to me, and I have never received a correct official answer to my Question. The more correct answer which was given was an Answer to another Question. In the letter the hon. Lady said:
I very much regret that … the error was due to the fact that in an attempt to deal with that part of the Question about the serious nature of the assault recourse was had to statistics which have since been shown to be less reliable than was thought.
There are two or three points which arise out of this. First, there is the remarkable discrepancy of 70 per cent. The discrepancy was not in the statistics for more serious assaults which were only 60 per cent. wrong. The others were 70 per cent. in some cases. So this talk of the recourse had to statistics of "the

serious assaults" is, frankly, just eye wash.
We are entitled to ask what are the statistics which in the hon. Lady's own words proved "less reliable than was thought". What were the statistics which the Home Office gave in answer to a Question and which two days later were realised to be hopelessly wrong?

Miss Bacon: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) made great play with this during the discussions in the Standing Committee and I hope that he will not think it necessary to go over it all again. I hope, Dr. King, that I can catch your eye later, but perhaps I can say now that in the Written Answer of 8th February, which we endeavoured to give at short notice, it was regrettable—I have already apologised to the Committee—that some wrong figures were given.
On 9th February we realised that the figures were wrong. On 10th February, when the Standing Committee was sitting, I took steps to inform the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), whose Amendment was being discussed, that these figures were wrong. He was so informed even before I knew the figures. Immediately at the beginning of the sitting of the Committee I said that the figures were wrong, so that the Committee discussion proceeded with hon. Members knowing that the figures given two days before were wrong.
We subsequently gave the right figures and I think that the hon. Member for Dorset, North would help the Committee more if he went on with his argument on the basis of the correct figures, which were given in the Written Answer on 16th February, instead of continuing in this way. I think it is confusing the Committee when he quotes first one figure and then the other. It would be much better if he proceeded on the basis of the figures of 16th February.

Sir Richard Glyn: The hon. Lady will find that it is I who am trying to prevent the Committee from being confused. I have here the HANSARD report of the Committee proceedings, and at no stage in the debate there did she give the correct figures. She gave one figure, which was 157, which still conflicts with the answer the following week, so we must assume that that was wrong, too.
The Committee's debate was conducted on false figures, very much understated figures and figures which made the position seem to be altogether less bad than it was.
What was this misleading source which the the hon. Lady mentioned in her letter? Was that Parliamentary Question answered from statistics provided by the Howard League or from other abolitionist propaganda society? Where do these misleading figures come from, and how many other Parliamentary Questions have been answered from similarly inaccurate figures?
I know that some of the figures given in Questions relating to the Bill have not been the same as Answers given by the Home Office on other occasions. It would be out of order to go into this now but there are such cases, and all the figures provided are utterly suspect. The Prison Officers' Association, the association of the men who are the protegés of the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted with great dismay that after this debate had continued in Standing Committee on absolutely wrong and misleading figures, at five minutes to one the hon. Lady the Minister of State was one of those who voted to closure, the debate, so that the debate finished before the correct figures could be revealed the following week. They were most dismayed at this unfortunate event.
Does the hon. Lady think that hon. Members are not affected by statistics? Does she think that Members do not vote on the statistics? Does she think that whether 100 or 200 warders are assaulted a year would make no difference to the way hon. Members voted on this Amendment?

Miss Bacon: The Committee did not vote on this Amendment. It went through without a vote.

Sir Richard Glyn: That does not alter the fact that the Closure was moved and carried with the assistance of the hon. Lady. She could not have known that there would not be a vote. She was so keen to get this business finished so that when the figures were known the next week, the publication of them would be rightly ruled out of order in the Committee.
I pass from that to the Home Secretary. He has been put in a most difficult position. He is personally responsible for the safety of prison officers. It is clear that when he agreed to support the Bill he did not know the measure of the danger in which these men were placed and the number of serious assaults on them. He believes that the best deterrent is a high detection rate and this we do not have. For any sort of violence, the rate is low. He also believes in a high security prison where dangerous criminals can be kept. We do not have such a prison. It may be many years before it is created. The 1948 Act provided for all sorts of special accommodation and special arrangements. They have never been built or provided. After 16 years, they still do not exist.
The Minister cannot say whether this high security prison will ever exist and, until it does, if there be a murder of a prison officer owing to the rejection of this Amendment, it will be his personal responsibility and nothing else.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that the detection rate for assault on warders is low?

Sir Richard Glyn: I said that the detection rate for violence is low. The detection rate has to be taken right through. There are no published figures for the detection rate of assault on warders. If the hon. and learned Member has some, perhaps he will produce them.
With a man undergoing a 30–year prison sentence—and there are some—the only deterrent from killing a prison officer while attempting to escape is the death penalty, the retention of the law as it stands at present—which has worked so well—by the acceptance of this Amendment. The only practical effect of doing the opposite is to ensure, at some stage, the death of a prison officer, one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's protégés. He owes them a special duty. If he rejects this Amendment, he will be rejecting his own personal duty to them. He has three courses open to him. The first is to say now that he has reconsidered his position in view of the evidence and the different statistics now revealed—quite different from what he supposed the position was when he first entered into this business of abolishing


the death penalty—in the light of the new evidence of the much greater danger to his protégés.
There is no question of anomaly. As I have already shown, if the Bill is passed in its present form it will create far greater anomalies than the acceptance of the Amendment. I have referred to mutiny, which I shall not repeat. If he is not free to accept the Amendment without, Cabinet consent, let him speak to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and let the Closure not be moved today, so that he can have leisure to consider the Amendment during the Recess and come back resolved to protect his protégés by accepting this Amendment. If he cannot bring himself to do either of these two things, he is not worthy to remain as Home Secretary of this great nation. If he puts his personal prejudices before the safety of the men who are his protégés and who look to him for protection, if he puts his likes and dislikes before the risk of death to one of these prison officers, he has the clear duty to resign.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must make the choice, and he must choose this morning. It is for him. I can only say that I hope that he will choose the course of honour.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: The sponsor of the Bill, speaking on Wednesday, argued that it would be illogical to accept this Amendment in view of the fact that we have previously turned down that which sought to protect police officers. If that is to be the basis of reasoning, I would say to him and to the House that there are many Members here who would be very glad to plead guilty to the charge of being illogical, if by so doing they were able to save the life of one prison officer. If that method of argument were pursued, we should throw out the remainder of the Amendments on the Notice Paper.
I am certain that everybody concedes that the Amendments to protect police officers and prison officers command the greatest measure of support, not only in the House but throughout the country. There are many who are prepared to support some parts of the Bill, but will readily concede that police officers and prison officers ought to be protected. If that is the case, it seems to me that we ought to have reversed the order of these

Amendments and left the two about prison and police officers to the end.
Public indignation is gradually boiling up on this issue, especially after the decision, last Wednesday, not to protect police officers. In the meantime, the prison officers themselves have left us in no doubt about their attitude to this Amendment. When one reflects on the flimsy pretexts which are offered for those who strike in the car industry, or the docks, one can only marvel at the restraint of these prison officers, whose lives are threatened. If the dockers or the car workers had one-thousandth part of the reason for striking which prison officers have, we should find that strikes continually happened in the prison service. Hon. Members may know that a nationwide petition is being organised by the League of Justice and. Liberty to try to express to the House the strong feeling which exists in the country against the Bill.
There is a little place in the north-east of Lancashire called Nelson, where, I understand, people are actively working to secure signatures for a petition which will be presented to the House at the proper time to try to persuade hon. Members that this Measure is foreign to the wishes of the large majority of the people.

11.0 a.m.

The Chairman: Order. When the hon. Member refers to "this Measure", is he referring to the Amendment? If he is speaking about the Measure in general, he is out of order.

Mr. Hiley: Thank you, Dr. King. I particularly mean the Amendment, because I want to impress upon the Committee that it is about prison officers, and, indeed, police officers, that there is such strong feeling.
About 5,000 signatures have been obtained in the town of Nelson. As far as I can make out, more people are responding to the petition in Nelson than in any other part of the country, with the possible exception of Bootle. If the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is here, I should like him to know that already 15,000 people have signed the petition in his constituency. If I felt that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) had any respect for the wishes of the people whom he represents, I would have challenged


him to try to get a petition in his area in support of the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. It is as I suspected. The hon. Member is addressing himself against the Bill. He must speak on the Amendment. Otherwise, the Committee will never finish.

Mr. Hiley: Thank you, Dr. King. I am sorry to have gone beyond the rules of order and I do not want to trade upon your indulgence.
I will not say more about that except to repeat that the feelings of the people are being strongly aroused, because they are concerned about the effect on prison officers and the possible consequences if the Amendment is not accepted and prison officers are not protected.
The case for the Amendment has been well made and I do not want to repeat the argument. The cases that were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) are unanswerable. I do not resist the argument that we are here as representatives and not as delegates, but at such a time as this, when there is such overwhelming feeling on the subject, we should have due regard to the feelings of those who are not here and who rely upon us to interpret public feelings. For that reason, I urge particularly those of my hon. Friends who see some good in the Bill at least to support us on the Amendment and, by so doing, to protect prison officers.

Mr. Evelyn King: It is relevant to what I have to say that I have in my constituency both a prison and a borstal institution. I have been approached by the Prison Officers' Association representing those who work within those places and it is right and within the tradition of the House of Commons that the views of a trade union—or, in this case, the Prison Officers' Association—should be put. I want to put them with moderation, with good sense and with what, I know, will appeal to you, Dr. King, with brevity.
The whole of this debate must turn upon one question, a question which has not been answered. If a prisoner has already been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, whether or not for murder, and thereafter, in the course of an attempt at escape or of prison riot, both of which are likely occurrences,

he commits a further murder, for that further murder no penalty whatsoever is known to the law. Whatever may be one's views on the ethics of capital punishment or any other aspect of criminology, that is an illogical position and one to which the Home Secretary has not produced any relevant reply. That is the basis of what I want to say.
I was present throughout the proceedings in Standing Committee. I apologise for the fortnight when I was absent in the Middle East, but I have followed the debates throughout. I have tried to gather up the attempted answers to the question which I have put. First, we had the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said, in effect, that prison officers were in no danger. That argument has been shot to pieces.
I do not want again to go over what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) has said, nor do I wish to go into the argument about which figures are right or wrong. I accept the figures given by the Minister of State, Home Office, on 16th February, which are now assumed to be correct. On the basis of the figures supplied by the Home Office, however, there are an average of something like 250 assaults on prison officers each year. That is to say, there are five assaults on prison officers each week. To put it another way, a prison officer is assaulted on average every three-and-a-half years of his service.
When the hon. Lady mentioned this aspect last month, she asked me to distinguish, and I gladly do so, between assaults and violent assaults. I have with me the figures for violent assaults covering a period of five years. Except for last year, they have been going up every year. In 1959, there were 30; the following year, 30; in 1961, 37; the next year, 62; in 1963, 50; and last year, 41. We have, therefore, a state of affairs in which assaults are common and violent assaults are on the increase.
Perhaps somebody will now argue that no prison officer has yet been murdered. I have, however, a copy of a letter from the Home Secretary to the Prison Officers' Association stating that three prison officers have been murdered since 1920. I agree that the murder rate is small, but many of these violent assaults


are violent assaults with a knife and if the number of prison officers who have been murdered is small, this is due more to luck than any other factor.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the hon. Member quote the basis of the statement that three prison officers have been murdered since 1920?

Mr. King: It is a letter from the Home Secretary to Mr. Castell, secretary of the Prison Officers' Association, dated 22nd February, stating that since 1920 three prison officers have been murdered on duty. No doubt, the hon. Member will take up the matter with his right hon. and learned Friend.
Then we had the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), who put forward three propositions. The first was that in a Bill which set forth to abolish the death penalty, it was illogical to have any exception. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North, has dealt with that argument and has shown that the Bill does not abolish the death penalty in all cases.
Then we had the argument that the restoration of the death penalty in the terms of the Amendment was not a deterrent. I accept that taking the death penalty for murder as a whole throughout the country, the deterrent effect can be exaggerated. It is a fact that murders are committed by persons who are not habitual criminals. Quite frequently it is a crime passionnel due to a sudden fit of temper. In such a case, the existence of the death penalty is no deterrent. Where, however, one has a community within a prison, where violence is part of the life of that community, I suggest that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is totally different. That view is not merely mine but is one which is held by almost all prison officers and, above all, by their wives.
Finally, we had the argument of the Home Secretary, who, I know, has turned his mind to this problem. In a letter to the Prison Officers' Association, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced his own solution that the further punishment which he admits to be necessary should simply be a maximum security prison with additional staff. I have three things to say about that. First, it is no deterrent; secondly, no such prison

exists; and thirdly, who will be in the prison?
There was an extraordinary degree of illogicality in the Home Secretary's letter. He stated that within this prison there would be long-term prisoners or prisoners with violent records. He goes on in the same letter to say that most of the difficulties do not come from that sort of prison, but come from borstal prisoners, who, presumably, will have none of the maximum security to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. We are left, therefore, with the fact that these prison officers do not have the protection which the House of Commons should give them. Not all prison officers necessarily go so far as to say that the death penalty should be reimposed, but they do suggest this.
The obligation rests firmly on the Home Secretary to produce some answer to the questions he has been asked, for I suggest that we have had no answer which could satisfy these people or any other reasonable person. The Home Secretary has towards them and their wives a special duty. So has Parliament. We are, directly or indirectly, their employers. The first task of a good employer is to safeguard not merely the interests but, above all, the lives of those whom he employs. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address himself to that question.

Mr. Ian Percival: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Dr. King, because I had hoped for an opportunity to speak this morning. I am keenly interested and deeply concerned about the effects of the Bill and, like many hon. Members who were not Members of the Committee upstairs and who perhaps did not have an opportunity of taking part in the Second Reading debate, I had hoped that when the matter returned to the Floor of the House we would all have an opportunity to make our views known. I have sat through the entire proceedings during the last three Wednesday morning sittings, but due to the acts of the promoters and supporters of the Measure in forcing through—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: With respect, Dr. King, if you will bear with me you will see that I did not intend to go out of order, because I proposed to relate my remarks to the Amendment.
My purpose is to invite the Committee to adopt a different approach to the subject of the Amendment from the approach of the promoters and some other hon. Members towards it so far. The approach which I have observed so far is that the promoters and supporters have tended to brush aside the arguments of those who take a different view and knowingly, by the use of the procedure of the House, to limit the discussion. My purpose in saying this is to express the hope that today all hon. Members will approach the Amendment on its merits and from a rather different angle from that which we have seen adopted by the promoters and supporters of the Measure.
I am one of many who find this a difficult problem. The whole question of capital punishment is a difficult problem, but it is particularly important in relation to this Amendment. Each Amendment should be considered carefully on its merits. That has not been the case so far. That is why I refer to the fact that, on many of the Amendments we have discussed, the promoters and supporters of the Bill have tended simply to brush aside any view which is contrary to theirs and—

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to follow his own argument and address himself to the merits of the Amendment.

Mr. Percival: I intend to do so, Dr. King, and my next comment is that the discussion we have so far had on the Amendment vividly illustrates what I mean. I will immediately turn to a quotation from an earlier part of the debate on the Amendment, when the principal promoter—the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)—after propounding what I will hope to show was a wholly fallacious argument, said that the arguments which had been adduced by him made the Amendment
… so ridiculous as to be entirely unacceptable to any rational mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 445.]

I suggest to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the Committee that that is no language with which to deal with an Amendment of this importance. It indicates a wholly wrong approach and that is why I say that it is to be hoped that, on this Amendment at least, the Committee will consider the whole matter on its merits, as I propose to do.
11.15 a.m.
I support the Amendment for simple but, I suggest, wholly realistic and practical reasons. Whatever the approach of hon. Members may have been hitherto to this subject, every hon. Member must now ask himself just what punishment and what deterrent we will be left with so far as concerns the murder of a prison officer if this Amendment is rejected. It has been frequently said that a prison sentence of from nine to 10 years—being the average or reasonable expectation for life imprisonment—is of itself a substantial punishment and deterrent. It has been argued by the promoters of the Measure that that is a deterrent at least as great as the death penalty. I take a contrary view on the latter point, for I believe that the death penalty must be as great a deterrent as any other penalty, if not a greater one. However, I am prepared to accept, for the purpose of this argument, that the likelihood of nine or 10 years in prison is a substantial deterrent.
In seeking to refute the arguments advanced by some of my hon. Friends in support of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to persons in prison for very short periods—perhaps for trivial offences, perhaps even for civil wrongdoings rather than criminal wrongdoings; and, of course, I accept that in such cases life imprisonment would represent a very great deterrent indeed, because the man who has only 14 days to serve might well regard the addition of 9 or 10 years as a great deterrent—and I also accept that for such people a term of imprisonment of 9 or 10 years would be regarded as a substantial punishment. We must also remember, however, that the Home Secretary might well be disposed to grant a reprieve. However, we are not concerned in this Amendment with those cases. They are, if anything, something of a red herring in this argument.
What of the persons who are already serving long sentences—of, say, 14 years—which will almost certainly ex hypothesi include the vicious and brutal criminal who is serving a long sentence simply because he has been caught committing vicious and brutal crimes? A long—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Percival: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish a sentence. I have listened to many, often lengthy, speeches from him. Perhaps he will be kind enough to listen to at least a part of one from me.
A long term of imprisonment for the sort of person I have just described would not be the answer, because he would be the sort of person who would have no compunction and no scruples about killing a prison officer. Thus, hon. Members must ask themselves what is to be done with that kind of criminal if the Amendment is not carried. If hon. Members look at the case on its merits they will see that this question is the crux of the case presented by the Amendment.
One must carry the argument a little further, as I propose to do with serious propositions. If such people were to be treated like other prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment and released after, say 9 or 10 years, they would in truth and in fact escape punishment for the most serious offence known to us. That is the punishment side of the matter. We are in danger, if we reject the Amendment, of depriving ourselves of any means of punishing these people.
What of the deterrent side? If a person already serving, say, 14 years' imprisonment, were left with any hope that he might be treated like the other murderer—that is to say, might be let out after nine or ten years—what would there be to deter him from killing a prison officer? This is the fundamental difference between the case for this Amendment and the case for the last two Amendments, both of which were rejected by the Committee. In regard to each of the last two Amendments, it could at least be said that if a man is at liberty, then the possibility that he may be deprived of that liberty for nine or ten years will be a substantial deterrent to him, but, if a man is already serving a long sentence, where

is the deterrent to his killing a prison officer if he has reason to believe that the result may not even be materially to lengthen his sentence?
It may be that that danger could be obviated, or made to appear to be obviated, to some extent by making it clear that such a murderer would be kept in prison for the rest of his natural life, and if we are to be advised by the Government that we should reject the Amendment I hope that the Government will at least make it clear that they have such a stern alternative in mind. But, even then, that is not as satisfactory as it may at first sight appear to be. If it were to be applied to all it would give rise to the very difficulties postulated by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in his reply to the arguments in favour of this Amendment. If it were applied universally, it would apply to the man in prison for 14 days as to the vicious prisoner there for 14 years, but if it were not to be applied universally, if there were to be a discretion, bang goes the deterrent value.
There are two further difficulties in such a possible solution of the problem. Suppose that course were to be adopted, suppose a prisoner then killed a prison officer, and suppose it were thus clear that he would then have to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, then, in truth, he would have nothing whatever to lose by killing another prison officer. Finally, if one is to abolish the death penalty for the killing of a prison officer, must one not face up to the fact that the only possible alternative is keeping a prisoner in prison for the rest of his natural life? And is it not at least as inhumane—if not, indeed, more inhumane—to take from him his liberty for the rest of his natural life, without hope, than it is to take his life?
These are some of the essential points on the positive side in favour of retaining the death penalty in the particular instance postulated in the Amendment, but I want to refer, albeit briefly, to one of the arguments that have been advanced against it by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. In our debate of 7th April, the hon. Member put it in the forefront of his argument that this Amendment was illogical because it would apply both to the short-term prisoner and to the long term prisoner.
Having drawn attention to that, in order to make his point he went on:
We decided to reject an Amendment which provided that if a man, serving a life sentence on a conviction for murder, committed another murder, that, too, should not be a capital murder. How ridiculous we would make ourselves if, having decided that we decided to hang a person who was in gaol for having failed to pay a £5 fine."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 444.]
The fallacy in his argument is apparent when it is shown that by passing this Amendment we are not deciding to hang anyone. The power of reprieve remains quite unaltered. All we do if we pass this Amendment is to retain for use in the cases where there is plainly no other punishment or no other deterrent, this ultimate punishment and ultimate deterrent. It is an utterly false argument to say that we are here deciding to hang any particuliar person.
The only tenable argument against this Amendment is, in my respectful submission, that to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has so often referred, and which has been referred to by other speakers; namely, the view held by some —though I say immediately on this, my first opportunity to make a contribution on the subject, that it is not my view—that it is morally wrong to execute in any circumstances. That is a tenable view, and it is the only really tenable argument against this Amendment. It is sometimes wrapped up, as it was by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in our debate on 31st March, when he made the assumption that the death penalty is now something which is quite
out of accord with modern thinking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1965; Vol. 709. c. 1585.]
To those who advance that sort of view I want to suggest that they are, perhaps, being just a little smug in their approach. I immediately exempt from that suggestion those—and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is a notable example—who while they have made it quite clear that they take the view that it is morally wrong to kill, and have the strongest possible feelings themselves, have also made it clear that they take the view that they must have due regard to the feelings of others and to the merits of each case. My suggestion is addressed to the many who seem to place their own personal feelings above

all else and then seek to justify their approach by saying that their view is in accord with modern thinking—or, even more presumptuously, that it is in advance of modern thinking.
I do not think that the death penalty is out of accord with modern thinking at this moment. Indeed, all the evidence I have, and I have approached the matter from a neutral point of view, leads me to the conclusion that the vast majority of the public take quite a different view from that of the promoters—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot develop a Second Reading speech on whether the death penalty is a deterrent.

Mr. Percival: With respect, Dr. King, I think that if I were to continue my remarks I would be found to be in order, but if I am wrong perhaps you will assist me. What I was about to do was to ask the promoters and supporters of the Bill to consider, particularly in connection with this Amendment, the possibility that it may be they who are out of accord with modern thinking, and that it may even be they who are wrong in their approach. If they are right in their views on this Amendment, as on any other Amendments, if they are right in their approach to this Amendment in holding simply that it is morally wrong to retain judicial execution, if they are right in that, and if their thinking is in advance of the thinking of those who differ from them, let them continue their crusade elsewhere, and when they have convinced the majority of the public that it is right and proper to deprive prison warders, against their will, of this protection, then, but then only, will it be right for the Committee to do what it is being asked to do.
I must have regard to your Ruling, Dr. King. I fear that if I were to develop that proposition any further you might take the view that I was going out of order again. May I conclude by relating my general observations to the Amendment in this way? There are two things we have to consider in relation to this Amendment. First, there is the question of the general approach. I am urging those whose general approach to this Bill and to the previous Amendments


has been simply that as a matter of principle we must not retain the death penalty at all, to consider that they might possibly be out of accord with modern thinking in taking that view and to concede that they may be wrong to take that approach.
Secondly, I ask them, after doing that, to approach this Amendment on its merits as a practical matter. If the Committee approaches the matter in that way it will, I am sure find that the arguments put forward by my hon. and right hon. Friends are so cogent and convincing that the Amendment should be carried by a clear majority.

11.30 a.m.

Miss Bacon: This Amendment reflects the concern for those who have to look after the men and women that society commits to prison—those doing a job, which sometimes is far from pleasant, on behalf of the community. Whether there is the death penalty or not, I am afraid that there will continue to be among the prisoners in our prisons some who are brutal and vicious.
I want to say one thing about prison officers. I hope that hon. Members will refer to them as prison officers for they do not like to be referred to as "warders". It would be a mistake to think that the prisoner officer today is just a turnkey or disciplinarian. Today the rôle of the prison officer is quite different. Although many of our prisons are out-dated and overcrowded, there are inside them many worthwhile experiments going on, such as group counselling, in which prison officers play a very important part.
The Prison Officers' Association, whom my right hon. and learned Friend and I recently met, is anxious that the prison officers should do more social work than they have done hitherto. I say this to put this matter into perspective because it is not true to think that in our prisons there is constant strife and violence between the prisoner and prison officer. Mention has been made of the letter which the Prison Officers' Association sent to my right hon. and learned Friend. The letter, dated 28th January, said that on behalf of the Association the general secretary and the association wished to solicit our consideration of a question

which arose in connection with the current homicide Bill.
It went on to say that members of the Association as individual citizens hold a variety of views upon the abolition of the death penalty, but that they shared an occupational concern about one aspect of the present Bill. It went on to ask my right hon. and learned Friend what were to be the conditions inside prisons to protect the prison officer from the really violent criminal. We met the Prison Officers' Association a few weeks ago and it is true that at that meeting some of the members expressed doubts about the abolition of the death penalty, but it is also true that the prison officers were very much concerned about their conditions and pay and about the future role of the prison officer.
I am pleased to say that the prison officers were very much in favour of penal reform and discussed the part to be played by the prison officer in this. While they are concerned about the abolition of the death penalty, I want to put this matter in perspective by making quite clear that the prison officer is also concerned about a great many other things.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) dealt with the number of attacks on prison officers during the last few years. I am sorry that he found it necessary to go over again the fact that there has been an error in a previous reply which I attempted to put right as quickly as possible. I am sure that hon. Members opposite would admit that I have done everything I can to give them all the figures for which they asked not only in reply to Parliamentary Questions, but by the many figures which I have sent privately to them in letters, for which they have thanked me.
I want to explain what the figures mean. In the Answer I gave on 16th February I gave separate figures for prisons and for borstals. There were two columns of figures in that Answer. One comprised the total number of offences dealt with under the Prison Rules, including the number of attempted offences of violence against prison officers. The second column gave the number of offences either involving gross personal violence or violence serious enough to be dealt with by prosecution in the courts.


The figures in the first column—assaults and attempted assaults—were as follows: 223 in 1959; 222 in 1960; 238 in 1961; 218 in 1962; and 160 in 1963. The figure for 1964, which I was not able to give on that occasion, was 167.
I make clear that this column refers to assaults and attempted assaults. Some, perhaps, were more serious, but some were very minor, such as giving a push or taking hold of the lapels of a prison officer. The other column, dealing with gross personal violence or violence serious enough to be dealt with by the courts, contains the following figures: 23 such offences for 1959; 25 in 1960; 33 in 1961; 21 in 1962; 44 in 1963; and 30 in 1964.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Do the figures refer to the whole of the United Kingdom? Is Scotland included?

Miss Bacon: No. These are figures for England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has separate figures for Scotland.
In the Answer I gave separate figures for borstal institutions. I shall not go through the whole of these, but I am now able to give the figure for 1964 for the first column, the assaults and attempted assaults. There were 65 in 1963 and 59 in 1964. That was the figure I was unable to give in answer to the Question.

Mr. Evelyn King: One thing which is important to remember when quoting figures for prisons and borstal institutions separately is that the impression given may be that they are going down while, in fact, they are going up.

Miss Bacon: I wished to save the time of the Committee, but I will give the figures for the borstal institutions because I do not want there to be any feeling that I am evading anything.
The figures in relation to assaults and attempted assaults are: in 1959, 40; in 1960, 46; in 1961, 27; in 1962, 34; in 1963, 65: in 1964, 59. In the second column, the more serious offences of gross personal violence or violence serious enough to be dealt with by prosecution in the courts, the figures are: 1959, 7; 1960, 5; 1961, 4; 1962, 11; 1963, 6; 1964, 11.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The borstal figures are not relevant. The Amendment does not apply to borstal inmates. The whole argument in support of the Amendment has been that it ought to apply where the prisoner has nothing else to fear because his sentence is already so long. This cannot apply to borstal cases.

Miss Bacon: Yes, there is something in what my hon. Friend says, but I wanted to give the Committee the full figures, since some doubt was expressed about these figures by the hon. Member for Dorset, North. I wanted to get them absolutely right.
During my period at the Home Office I have had to deal with a great many of the cases and the files and the punishments which have been awarded for assaults and for violence on the part of prisoners against prison officers. It is true to say that the overwhelming majority of these assaults and acts of violence take place on the spur of the moment. They are sudden, uncontrollable outbursts, born of the unnatural conditions of prison life, in an atmosphere where grievances are nursed and small incidents become enlarged. So there is this sudden hitting out against authority. It is not something which is anything to do with whether we have the death penalty or not. There are these sudden outbursts of temper on the part of people who have been in prison, perhaps for a considerable time.
But I admit that there are in our prisons a small number of dangerous, brutal prisoners, probably not there because they have committed murder at all, who present a very special problem. Between 1957 and 1964, 52 people were convicted of capital murder. Twenty-nine of these were executed, which means that 23 of those convicted between 1957 and 1964 are in our prisons today. Taking the figures for the past few years individually, in 1960, nine persons were convicted of capital murder, five of whom were executed. In 1961 the figures were the same. This means that four in each year had to be accommodated in prison. In 1962, four people were convicted of capital murder, three of whom were executed. In 1963 the figure was four, two of whom were executed. In


1964, the figure was six, two of whom were executed.
It can be seen that each year the extra numbers who would have to be accommodated in prison if the Bill becomes law is very low indeed. There are at present 365 prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment. I know—I readily admit this to those hon. Members who support the Amendment—that it is not the numbers which trouble them. What troubles them is whether, in future, there will be more trouble in prison because of the abolition of the death penalty. Will the fact that there is no death penalty mean that the long-term prisoner, perhaps not a murderer, will try to obtain his freedom by force and possibly murder a prison officer?
Since 1900, two borstal inmates have been convicted of the murder of a prison officer, and in one case also there was the murder of a matron of a borstal institution. During that period no prisoner has been convicted of the murder of a prison officer. I know that there are those hon. Gentlemen who support the Amendment who would argue that this has been so because of the existence of the death penalty. Their argument is that, without the death penalty, the position would be different.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I intervene in an attempt to help the Home Office. What the hon. Lady has just said appears to conflict with a letter written by the Home Secretary on 22nd February, 1965, in which he said this:
Since 1920, three officers have been murdered on duty.
What the hon. Lady said just now conflicted with that. We would like to get it right.

Miss Bacon: As a matter of fact, I checked this before I spoke. What I have said is right. There is no conflicting view here. It is just a question whether a borstal officer is counted as a prison officer. No prison officer serving in a prison has been murdered by a prisoner since 1900. The two prison officers—they count as prison officers in borstal—were both murdered in a borstal by borstal inmates. In addition, there was one case of the matron of a borstal institution being murdered. The difficulty here is that

those who serve in borstals are regarded as prison officers. All the murders which have taken place were murders by borstal inmates in borstals.

Sir John Hobson: It is important that this should be made clear. The promoter of the Bill said that the Amendment would not affect Borstal officers. As I had understood it—I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would confirm it—the Amendment, if passed, would cover the murder of an officer employed at a borstal institution, be he serving as a house-master or in another capacity. He would be a prison officer for the purposes of the Amendment.

Miss Bacon: A prisoner is a person in prison, but a prison officer can also serve in a borstal. That is the distinction.
As I was saying when I was interrupted, hon. Members would say that there have been so few murders because of the existence of the death penalty. I do not believe that that can be argued in this case. I believe—I think that it is a matter of belief here—that, if a prisoner was escaping in the past, even with the death penalty, and he had a murder weapon, which is very unlikely, he would do anything, death penalty or no death penalty, to make good his escape, because he would not be acting in a rational way, but would be acting in a quite desperate way. I do not believe that whether we have the death penalty or whether we do not will make any significant difference to what would happen if a prisoner was trying to escape. It is most unlikely that a prisoner trying to escape would have any murder weapon. I have already quoted other countries to show that in other countries which have abolished the death penalty there have not been murders of prison officers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is determined to take all necessary steps to protect prison officers from specially dangerous prisoners. This is so whether the death penalty is abolished or not. As my right hon. and learned Friend has already written and explained to the members of the Prison Officers' Asociation, there is to be a special allocation centre for all long-term offenders, and murderers and others will be studied here. At this stage the potentially dangerous men will be carefully studied


and allocated to the special wing, where the security will be greater and the staffing ratio much higher.
The letter we have received from the Prison Officers' Association stressed that some prison officers in an individual capacity were in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. I do not find that at all surprising, because prison officers have to attend the death cell when a murderer is awaiting execution. Prison officers have some unpleasant jobs to do, but I cannot think of one more unpleasant than having to sit with a condemned man during the last hours of his life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) pointed out in his moving speech during our last sitting, mistakes can happen, and it is a fact that following a murder which recently took place in prison it was discovered only last week that one of the prisoners who had been convicted was entirely innocent. If the death penalty had been in force that man would have been dead, and nothing could have been done about it.

Sir Richard Glyn: rose—

Miss Bacon: No, I am not giving way again. I am pretty certain that the prison officers who had sat with that man would have felt even worse.
I, for my part, hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. I have a great many friends among prison officers. I want to do everything I can to help them, but I do not believe that this Amendment is the right course to take.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I support this Amendment. I sympathise with the views of those hon. Members who wish to abolish the death penalty completely. I supported the Bill on Second Reading, but when I did so I was quite clear in my own mind that I wished to retain certain exceptions. I put my name to all the Amendments that sought to create these exceptions, and I consider that this Amendment that we are discussing today to retain the death penalty for the murder of prison officers is the most important of them all. This is the most important Amendment of all because prison officers are exposed to risk at all time, more than

any other group of people in our community, including even the police. It is their right that society should give them the maximum protection.
I have in my constituency in the Isle of Wight two prisons, Parkhurst and Camp Hill, and we are to have a third, the maximum security prison that has been spoken of. In passing, I hope that the Home Secretary appreciates the cooperation that he is getting from the local authorities on the island who are not objecting to the provision of this third prison.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): indicated assent.

Mr. Woodnutt: I have received deputations from the prison officers of Parkhurst and Camp Hill, and they have asked me to support this Amendment. It is true, as the hon. Lady has said, that there are some prison officers who, in their private capacity, would wish to see complete abolition, but they are very few in number. Most of them would like this exception, and there is no doubt that their wives, almost 100 per cent., wish this Amendment to be accepted.
Undoubtedly, most hon. Members of the Committee will have seen the inside of a prison and the sort of people who are there, but Parkhurst contains the very dregs of our society. It houses habitual criminals, violent men, wicked men, men whom the courts regard as beyond redemption.They would do anything to settle a grudge out of spite, or to escape. When one goes round Parkhurst Prison one only has to look at these men and to see the expressions on their faces to realise that they are wicked men, most of them beyond redemption.
Argument has ranged backwards and forwards over the years as to whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. Frankly, I do not accept the argument that it is, neither do I accept the argument that it is not a deterrent. I think all these statistics are most misleading. There is always the unknown factor that we do not know how many people are walking about who would have been deterred. But it is a fair assumption from this long record of 50 years, or whatever it is, during which


time no prison officer has been murdered, that it might have been a deterrent, and it seems pointless to put prison officers at risk by removing it.
But is this the main point? I do not think that the main point is whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. The main point is that most prison officers sincerely believe that it is a deterrent. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. This is what they really believe and it gives them peace of mind. It gives their wives peace of mind, and it would be entirely wrong if we were to remove this peace of mind from these men and their wives.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is adducing his argument in the mast agreeable terms, whether we accept his argument or not. But is he really suggesting to this Committee that it would be right for the State to kill a man, not to make somebody else safer but only to make him think that he was safer? Would that be right?

Mr. Woodnutt: What I am saying is that these men believe that it is a deterrent. They may be right or they may be wrong, but, reductio ad absurdum, if they believe this, and if they were all to leave the prison service, what would happen then? It is right that this penalty should be retained. It is right that they and their wives should have this peace of mind. It would be quite wrong of the House of Commons to remove the death penalty for murder committed in prison when all these men are overwhelmingly in favour of its retention, for they are the people who have to face the hazards and the risks every day of their lives.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that even if the belief of prison officers is false, as it may well be, we would still be justified in retaining the death penalty?

Mr. Woodnutt: Yes, I am saying that. I think we should do it. There are too many hon. Members who are always on the side of the transgressor. We are dealing with criminals, and if we have to err let us err on the side of the prison officer and not of the criminal. I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Samuel. The Amendment refers not only to prison officers in England, but to prison officers in Scotland, where we have a large number of prisons and a large number of prison officers whose security and conditions of work the Committee has not been able to consider, either.
May I submit that we should have a chance at least to put their case and to find out what assurance the Home Secretary can give us as to the future safety of these men?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): That does not raise a point of order.

Sir Stephen McAdden: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Samuel. It should be brought to your attention that, although the decision to accept the Motion is entirely a matter for the Chair, it was known outside this Chamber 10 minutes ago exactly when the Motion would be accepted. That seems to be quite wrong.

The Deputy-Chairman: That, too, does not raise a point of order.

The committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 106.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[11.58 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dalyell, Tam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Darling, George


Aldritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Dempsey, James


Berkeley, Humphry
Buchanan, Richard
Diamond, John


Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil
Dodds, Norman


Blackburn, F.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crosland, Anthony
Driberg, Tom


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Duffy, A. E. P.




Dunn, James A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Perry, Ernest G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest


English, Michael
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Prentice, R. E.


Ennals, David
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Ledger, Ron.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul B.


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbock, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, J.
Rowland, Christopher


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Garrow, A.
Mclnnes, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Gregory, Arnold
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Gray, Charles
MacPherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie
Small, William


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Mapp, Charles
Soskice Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy
Steel, David


Harrison, Walter (wakefield)
Maxwell, Robert
Steele, Thomas


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.
Stones, William


Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Taverne, Dlck


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Thornton, Ernest


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Hooson, H. E.
Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Warbey, William


Howie, W.
Newens, Stan
Watkins, Tudor


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Orbach, Maurice
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jackson, Colin
Oswald, Thomas
Winterbottom, R. E.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, Walter
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Idwal Jones and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman
Mr.David Griffiths.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Awdrey, Daniel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bassell, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Blaker, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Box, Donald
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brewis, John
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Sharples, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Sinclair, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Jopling, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Studholme, Sir Henry


Buck, Antony
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Talbot, John E.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Lagden, Godfrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Channon, H. P. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Longtaottom, Charles
Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Cooke, Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Cordle, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Ward, Dame Irene


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Dance, James
McMaster, Stanley
Webster, David


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Maginnis, John E.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Dean, Paul
Maitland, Sir John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maude, Angus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Woodnutt, Mark


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wylie, N. R.


Forrest, George
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gardner, Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Monro, Hector



Glyn, Sir Richard
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams and


Grieve, Percy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Goodhew


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)

Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

12 noon.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Samuel. I understand that the Division

bells in the upper corridor did not sound on the occasion of the last Division. May I ask that the directions be given to see that they sound this time?

The Deputy-Chairman: I will arrange that inquiries be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 157.

Division No. 91.]
AYES
[12.8 p.m.


Allason, James(Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Percival, Ian


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Plckthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Baker, W. H. K.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W)
Pym, Francis


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bessell, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Sharpies, Richard


Brewis, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sinclair, Sir George


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Buck, Antony
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Talbot, John E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lagden, Godfrey
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Cordle, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
MacArthur, Ian
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Curran, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dance, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ward, Dame Irene


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
McMaster, Stanley
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul
Maginnis, John E.
Webster, David


Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maitland, Sir John
Whitelaw, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Forrest, George
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Gardner, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Glyn, Sir Richard
Orr-Ewing Sir Ian



Gower, Raymond
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Sir Rolf Dudley Williams and




Mr. Goodhew.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Diamond, John
Hayman, F. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dodds, Norman
Heffer, Eric s.


Aldritt, Walter
Doig, Peter
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bacon, Miss Alice
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooson, H. E.


Berkeley, Humphry
Dunn, James A.
Howie, W.


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Blackburn, F.
English, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Braddoek, Mrs. E. M.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jackson, Colin


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, R.w. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Buchanan, Richard
Garrow, A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carlisle, Mark
Gregory, Arnold
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Grey, Charles
Johnson Smith, G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Chataway, Christopher
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Jopling, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Kelley, Richard


Darling, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph
Kirk, Peter


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Lawson, George


Dempscy, James
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Ledger, Ron




Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Skeffington, Arthur


Longbottom, Charles
Orbach, Maurice
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Small, William


Lubbock, Eric
Oswald, Thomas
Solomons, Henry


McCann, J.
Padley, Walter
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


MacColl, James
Paget, R. T.
Steel, David


MacDermot, Niall
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Steele, Thomas


Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stones, William


MacPherson, Malcolm
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Swingler, Stephen


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Thornton, Ernest


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin


Manuel, Archie
Prentice, R. E.
Warbey, William


Mapp, Charles
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Watkins, Tudor


Mason, Roy
Rees, Merlyn
Whitlock, William


Maxwell, Robert
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, w.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Millan, Bruce
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Miscampbell, Norman
Rowland, Christopher
woof, Robert


Molloy, William
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)



Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Newens, Stan
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Mr. Idwa, Jones and


Norwood, Christopher
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. David Griffiths.


Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 5, after "murder". insert:
except an already convicted murderer who, in the course of life imprisonment, shall murder again".—[Sir J. Hobson.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 102, Noes 149.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[12.17 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bessell, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Sharples, Richard


Box, Donald
Hiley, Joseph
Sinclair, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brewis, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Summers, Sir Spencer


Bullus, Sir Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Talbot, John E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Lagden, Godfrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Cordle, John
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


Curran, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Dance, James
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Ward, Dame Irene


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul
McMaster, Stanley
Webster, David


Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Forrest, George
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Murton, Oscar
Woodnutt, Mark


Gardner, Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wylie, N. R.


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hn. George


Glyn, Sir Richard
Percival, Ian



Goodhart, Philip
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Pym, Francis
Mr. Mawby and Mr. Buck.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)


Aldritt, Walter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Buchanan, Richard


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Carlisle, Mark


Berkeley, Humphry
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Carmichael, Neil


Bishop, E. S.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Carter-Jones, Lewis




Chataway, Christopher
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Darling, George
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Popplewell, Ernest


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson Smith, G.
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rees, Merlyn


Dempsey, James
Jopling, Michael
Richard, Ivor


Diamond, John
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Kirk, Peter
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Rowland, Christopher


English, Michael
Ledger, Ron
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ennals, David
Lipton, Marcus
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Finch, Harold (Bedwelty)
Longbottom, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lubbock, Eric
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McCann J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Garrow, A.
Mahon, Peter (Preston S.)
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Solomons, Henry


Grey, Charles
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie
Steel, David


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mapp Charles
Steele, Thomas


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maxwell, Robert
Swingler, Stephen


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mendelson, J. J.
Taverne, Dick


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thornton, Ernest


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wallace, George


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Molloy, William
Warbey, William


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Watkins Tudor


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan
Whitlock, William


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hooson, H. E.
O'Malley, Brian
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Howie, W.
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Orme, Stanley
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Padley, Walter
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.



Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jackson, Colin
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Idwal Jones and


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. David Griffiths.

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. I should like to propose, Sir Samuel, that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I make this suggestion for special reasons, and I should like to advance them to the Chair and say why I think that they are important.
We have just taken two major decisions: one in which the police officers have not been consulted—to which reference is made in the speech of the hon. Lady the Minister of State—and another in which I understand the prison officers have not been consulted. Also, I must make it clear that we are going right in the face of public opinion—

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am not prepared to accept such a Motion at present.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", to insert:
except for any murder done in the course or furtherance of theft".

The Deputy-Chairman: We can discuss at the same time Amendment No. 6—in line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder by shooting or by causing an explosion"—
Amendment No. 18—in line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder done by shooting in the course of furtherance of theft"—
and Amendment No. 19—in page 2, line 14, at end add:
(5) The following murder shall continue to be capital murder, and shall be liable to the same punishment for murder as heretofore, that is to say any murder that is referred to in section 5(1)(b) of the Homicide Act 1957 where the accused has previously been convicted of an indictable offence involving violence against the person.
If it is wished, Amendment No. 6 can be moved formally later so that there may be a Division on it.

Mr. Deedes: We have already discussed Amendment No. 5 elsewhere. I think that I should be most helpful to the Committee if I were to leave some of the main arguments to other people


and if I dealt principally with the points which have already been shown to be at issue between us.
Prima facie, there is a very strong case for the Amendment. The strength of it is clear to anyone who studies the Home Office Research Unit Report, "Murder". I hope that before we part with the Amendment hon. Members who have not studied it will glance at some of the conclusions in it, because they bear most particularly on the Amendment. The Committee should be aware of some of the main conclusions, and before I turn to particular points I should like to mention one or two of them.
The Report shows that, of the 52 people who have been convicted of capital murder since 1957, 38 had had previous convictions and that of those about two-thirds had been found guilty of larceny or breaking and entering. The position is very clearly summarised in paragraph 73 of the Report, which says:
Among men convicted of capital murder 79 per cent. had previous convictions; among those convicted of non-capital murder, the proportion was 55 per cent. Among those executed, it was 84 per cent. It appears that nearly all capital murder is committed by persons with criminal records; and of the 22 men with criminal records, 16 had been previously convicted on more than one occasion. Most of these convictions"—
and this is the point—
were for larceny and breaking and entering, and the proportion with previous offences against the person among their convictions was actually lower among capital murderers than non-capital murderers, as shown in Table 41.
That indicates that the purpose of the Amendment is not altogether irrelevant to those of us who think that the Bill, as amended, should meet circumstances as they are and not as some hon. Members may wish them to be.
I turn to one of the main objections which I understand the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and his supporters have to the Amendment. If I can summarise it fairly the argument is that in reverting to the terms of the 1957 Act the Amendment would provide the supreme penalty, not only for armed robbery in the course of theft, but for all murders which might occur in course or in furtherance of theft. In other words, it could include—indeed, in one instance it has included—murder

which could conceivably be described as murder by inadvertence.
12.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has already brought to our attention the case of John Vickers, about which, I know, he feels deeply—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Deedes: —who in the course of robbery was disturbed, who struck and, owing to the fragility of his victim, found himself convicted and was hanged for murder. He is at least one symbol of the argument which is advanced against the Amendment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is true that I see such a discrepancy as the right hon. Member is pointing out, and this is a serious objection to the Amendment, but it would be quite wrong to say that it is my principal objection. My principal objection to the Amendment is that it retains the death penalty for anything.

Mr. Deedes: I appreciate that it is not the hon. Member's principal objection, because he objects to the Amendment on all conceivable grounds. I am, however, dealing with a point which the hon. Member has raised, which he may raise again and which the Committee must consider seriously. I am taking seriously the point that the hon. Member has made. He can have no objection to that.
In bringing forward that instance—and there may be others like it—the hon. Member is misguided. The intention is surely not, either now or in 1957, to draw up a category of criminals who ought by their nature to be hanged if they commit murder in course of theft. That cannot be the intention. It is, surely, to protect citizens from the contingency, which today is, unfortunately, all too likely, of encountering a thief, perhaps endeavouring to detain the thief, or not even endeavouring to detain him, and losing one's life in consequence. That must be the purpose of those who seek additional protection for the citizen under the terms of the Bill.
If arising from a theft I, as a householder, am killed, how I am killed merely becomes irrelevant. If I am killed by inadvertence even by the man committing the crime, the processes of law will look after the consequences. It is,


however, quite vain to plead that occasions may arise when the theft was only a little one or that hitherto the murderer had, perhaps, led a blameless life. In my view, what is being argued around this point strikes at the root of protecting society in a civilised country.
Of course, there are degrees of heinousness of murder which is committed in the course of theft. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will tell us, there are worse crimes than this in the calendar. In the view of many members of the Committee the rape and murder of a helpless child would be a worse offence. But the 1957 Act, which is so readily and so wrongly dismissed by many hon. Members as illogical, had, in a sense, much more profound logic than is generally recognised. It attempted not to list murders in order of heinousness, but to retain the supreme deterrent for murders most likely to threaten society. That was the purpose of the Act and that is our purpose in bringing forward this Amendment from it to the hon. Member's Bill.
Murder in cold blood, or murder in hot blood while engaged in theft, is emphatically one of the risks which the householder aid others encounter. Nobody could fairly suggest that since 1957 the risk had diminished. There is no other justification for penalties of this kind than the protection of society. There can be no justification for attempting to list murders in course or furtherence of theft or any kind of murder in order of heinousness. Protection where the citizen is most vulnerable certainly lies behind the motives of myself and others who are pressing this series of Amendments.
We do not say that the man who carries a gun and who is prepared to shoot if he is detained in the course of theft is a greater danger than the man who carries no weapon and who kills when confronted in the course of crime. We say that both are guilty of murder in course of theft. Both are contingencies which may well arise in the course of a citizen's everyday life. They do arise, and both are contingencies against which the citizen is entitled to protection.
It is not easy just now, in any of the civilised countries of the West, to persuade the citizen to align himself or herself with the forces of law and order. Every member of the Committee knows that there are various resistances. One is

fear; that is natural. These resistances are a major factor in failing to maintain law and order. The knowledge that murder done by one engaged in theft is liable to attract the supreme penalty of hanging is, in my view, a contribution to reducing that fear and to recruiting the citizen actively on the side of law and order.
The citizen has recently been invited by the police to "have a go". To have a go and leave a widow does not seem to me to be a compelling call to citizens on behalf of law and order. It is no good hon. Members saying that this is an academic point which does not arise. As I shall show, this is something which can arise more frequently than in almost any other category of crime with which we are concerned.
I agree that the deterrent argument—whether hanging is a unique deterrent—is here crucial. Does the death penalty deter those who may be in course of theft from committing murder? To complete my argument, I must put forward to the Committee some facts which hon. Members have heard before.
Great stress is laid on the fact that the relation between capital and non-capital murder since 1957 has remained fairly constant, whereas if hanging were the unique deterrent which some, including myself, believe it to be, one might expect a fall in the category of capital murder. This figure cannot, however, be examined in isolation. The fact is that since 1957 the figures relating to crimes of robbery with violence have rocketed.
Let me remind the Committee of the sort of figures that I am talking about. From the Criminal Statistics in England and Wales, 1963, I have taken Class II, offences against property with violence. This is the category which is of greatest importance in relation to the Amendment. In the years 1955 to 1959, from which we might take in 1957 as an average. the number of offences of burglary committed with violence was 3,743 and in 1963 the total was 6,688. In that first year, offences of housebreaking with violence totalled 29,745, and in 1963, 65,178. Offences of entering with intent to commit felony, in 1957, numbered 16,193; in 1963, 35,446.
These increases cannot be accounted for by some exact crime accountancy.
The fact is that all these categories of crime have greatly increased and every hon. Gentleman knows it, and yet at the same time the number of murders committed in furtherance of theft has remained tolerably constant. That is what I for one would expect. I think that this is a field in which the deterrent is most likely to bite.

Mr. Paget: It is not the number of murders in furtherance of theft which has remained pretty stable: it is the number of murders which has remained pretty stable. It is the fact that the number of murders has remained pretty stable ever since 1900. The number of other crimes, including crimes of violence, goes up and down. The number of murders remains pretty stable all the way through, which seems to show that murder is affected by factors which are quite different.

Mr. Deedes: I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it is perfectly clear that since 1900 the proportion of murders committed in furtherance of theft has remained a constant proportion of the number of murders committed, and numerically it has also remained a pretty steady figure in the increase in violence during recent years.

Mr. Paget: Which is proportionate to the increase in population.

Mr. Deedes: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is seized of the point I am making, and the point I am making is that, whereas the number of thefts involving violence has doubled and trebled in the last decade, the number of murders has remained steady.

Mr. Paget: The point I am making is that this is not the first crime wave we have experienced during this period. In previous crime waves murders still remained stable, and in previous crime waves they were not considering the death penalty. It did not arise.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about crime waves, but I can only report to him that since 1957, as these statistics show, the number has gone steadily up and is still going up, and as far as I can see the figures for 1964 will show that we are in the region—perhaps the hon. Lady or someone from

the Home Office can confirm this—of 250,000 offences against property with violence. We shall be within that range, compared with a total of 107,000 in 1957. This is an increase of some one and a half times.
I insist that, in relation to murders done, though that figure rises so dramatically, murder remains stable. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee will put their own interpretation on the figures, as they have been doing throughout our proceedings, but we have at least some indication of what the deterrent means.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What I am wondering is what interpretation the right hon. Gentleman is inviting us to put upon them. Is he saying that if the death penalty for those crimes had been abolished in 1957 those criminals who used violence in the course of theft would have used a little more violence? Is that the point?

Mr. Deedes: No. It is known to every hon. Member of the Committee that professional criminals have taken care not to murder while conducting professional crime. It is well known. If the hon. Member wishes to prove the opposite case no doubt he will have an opportunity when he catches the eye of the Chair. All I am saying is that from the figures as presented this seems to be the most likely conclusion to be reached. I say that in this field both the professional criminal and the petty thief have up to now had in their minds a fairly clear idea of what the consequences of fatal violence in the course of their crimes would be.
It may appear to some hon. Gentlemen opposite that each of this series of Amendments which we have tabled is justified by some particular and special reason. Well, that is true. This Amendment, in particular, affects the safety of the private citizens more than any other which we shall discuss in the course of our proceedings. As I say, I think that it will be shown that at the end of 1964 the number of something like 250,000 crimes will have been committed in this category of offence against property with violence.
How can it be said that the need for protection has diminished? How can it be said that the hour, as it were, is past for the need of a deterrent like this?
This takes me to the heart of my opposition to the hon. Member's Bill. Legislation, to be sound, really should hear some relationship to the social needs of the time. Goodness knows, we in this place are often behind need, but let us not fly in the face of it. This Bill really bears no relation to the current trends, some of which I have indicated statistically, and least of all to that which this Amendment now seeks to remedy. In respect of theft it would have at least one effect.
The Bill would underline the instinct of many citizens today not to get mixed up with criminals carrying out crime. Why take an unnecessary risk either in supporting the forces of law and order or even in defending one's own property, when the result may be the forfeiture of life? No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will be able to address themselves to the opposite argument, but I remain convinced that this Bill will not strengthen the willingness, or the will or the determination, of the citizen to defend himself, and to align himself, as he should, with the forces of law and order.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order. May I inquire, Sir Samuel, whether you are of the opinion that there is a quorum in the Committee at the moment?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee has recently been counted in a Division, and I am not prepared to order a Count at the present moment.

Mr. Deedes: I would conclude by saying that I believe that, as a result, we should have cause to regret this Bill.

Mr. Paget: We have heard a very sincere and well argued speech, as we always do when it comes from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), but I would just put to him this. I believe that he draws quite the wrong conclusion from those statistics which he put to us. My submission is this, that the real deterrent to murder is something inside us. We are basically not blood animals, and all of us who are normal have a tremendous inhibition against killing. That is something which is in our nature—the inhibition against killing in cold

blood. That inhibition exists just as much in criminals as it does in anybody else. It is part of the nature of most of us.
Criminals, like other people, like many of us, explain the inhibitions of our nature; they rationalise and say, "Well, I would not do it because I do not want to hang". If that reason is not there they find themselves another reason for not doing what their instinct rebels against doing.
I think that most of us would literally rather die than commit murder. If the choice is our life or somebody else's, to a tremendous extent our instinct is that we cannot bring ourselves to do it. I think that very few of us could bring ourselves to be a hangman, could bring ourselves to go out and do in cold blood what, if we support capital punishment, we would do through another.
It is for that reason that I find the figures for murder, whether in the course of theft or not, so astonishingly stable, and so astonishingly unaffected by the rise and fall in other forms of crime. Throughout this decade there have been a whole series of periods when crime has risen steeply, then fallen, risen steeply once more, and fallen again. It is true that at this moment we are in a phase in which the rise is sharper than anything which we have experienced before, but the murder rate remains perfectly stable now, as it did during previous occasions.

Sir J. Hobson: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when the crime rate last fell? We all know that it rises at different rates, but when did it last fall in this country?

Mr. Paget: At given times, the crime rate per million fell quite sharply. I am speaking from memory, but I think that that happened in 1922–23. After that there was another period, when it rose rather steeply in the early 'thirties, after having gone down. I think that there was also a rise round about 1910. I am, of course, calling on my memory, but we have had these phases of up and down, or, for the purposes of my argument, we have had different rates of acceleration. but the murder rate has been stable all the way through, and the reason is that murder is a crime quite by itself and is


affected by considerations different from those affecting other crimes.

Mr. Deedes: How does the hon. and learned Gentleman account for the conclusions which are reached, and must be accepted, in the Home Office pamphlet, "Murder", about capital murder with previous convictions? How does he account for the close connection between capital murders and men who have previous convictions for larceny, if he says that murder is in a separate category from other crimes?

Mr. Paget: I should have thought that the reason was obvious. If one can confine murder, which is what we have done, to murder in the course of theft, the people for whom we retain capital punishment are people who indulge in theft. There is not the slightest surprise that murderers in the course of theft are more likely to have stolen before than people who commit murder not in the course of theft. There is no discovery about that, and it does not mean that criminals generally are more apt to commit murder than other people. On the whole, they are not.
Murder is a crime apart. Some criminals commit murder, some non-criminals commit murder, but if we confine murder to murder in the course of theft, then, of course, it is true that far more criminals than non-criminals commit murder in the course of theft. I should have thought that there was no mystery about that, or that it affected this argument in the least.
What I would say—and I think that this is an argument against all exceptions—is that the man who commits murder is not a normal person. He is a person with an inflated ego. This is illustrated perhaps as well as anything by his reaction to his publicity. The greatest penalty to an ordinary person involved in crime is horror of the newspapers having his name and giving publicity to his crime. With murderers, all the evidence is that they are tremendously vain about their publicity and anxious for it. It shows the different type of man which one has in this category.

Mr. William Yates: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing the theory that the

majority of murders committed in this country over the past years were committed by people who had no previous connection with crime?

Mr. Paget: Yes. Right through the period the majority of murders were committed by people who had not previously been involved in serious crime.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that people who become professional housebreakers and who devote themselves to a life of crime are normal people? These are the sort of people with whom the Amendment seeks to deal. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that these people, who are prepared to live a life of crime, are normal people, with inbuilt consciences which one would expect of the normal person?

Mr. Paget: I am saying that they probably are. They are people who, on the whole, vote Conservative. I am not saying that that is particular evidence of normality. They are people who have the strongest objection to murder, and who produce all kinds of reasons about it. Perhaps each of us has his separate abnormalities, but on the whole the professional burglar is someone who has a strong inhibition against killing, and we have had evidence of this rather curious fact.
We have evidence of the inflated ego—"I made up my mind to swing for him", "Mine is the great passion", "This is the great sacrifice", and so on, showing a connection between masochism and sadism. All these elements go to build up the murderer. They have nothing to do with the ordinary instincts of a criminal. This is a different class, and a different category of motivation from that with which one is dealing in ordinary crime. That is why the statistics for ordinary crime are different from those for the murder rate which acts quite independently.

It being One o'clock, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again pursuant to Resolution [18th March].

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 28th April.

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed at 2.30p.m.

Orders of the Day — NEW WRIT

Mr. Paget: For Birmingham, Hall Green, in the room of the right hon. Aubrey Jones (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Glen Feshie (Road)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received concerning the construction of a road through Glen Feshie; and what action he intends to take on these proposals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Aberdeen and Inverness County Councils have suggested that a new road should be built through Glen Feshie. I told representatives of both authorities on 19th March that this scheme would be considered, along with similar proposals, in the context of current studies of the Highlands.

Mr. Johnston: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he give any indication when he expects to come to a decision on the matter? Can he give me an assurance that in coming to such a decision he will give full weight to the arguments about tourism and east-west access, especially in relation to the pulp mill?

Dr. Mahon: Certainly. I am willing to give an assurance that these matters will be borne in mind. As the hon. Member knows, at the meeting that we had these matters were fully explored and these important points were impressed upon me. I regret that I cannot say when we shall come to a decision on the matter. There are a number of priorities which have to be sorted out. The Highland counties concerned, as the result of an inquiry by the Highland Panel, have submitted a programme for no less than 36 new road schemes, estimated to cost about £16 mill ion. The Glen Feshie improvement will cost as much as £2 million. The hon. Member will understand the

immense problem that lies before us in sorting out which comes first.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Member aware of the tremendous benefit not only to the Highlands but to the northeast, particularly in respect of forestry in Aberdeenshire, Deeside, and Kincardineshire, and will he bring this decision forward as soon as possible?

Dr. Mahon: Yes, Sir.

Housing (Statistics)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for obtaining additional and up-to-date statistics concerning the housing problem.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As I said on 24th February in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), my right hon. Friend has arranged for a sample survey of Scottish housing to be carried out in the early summer.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that house surveys cannot be properly taken until certain things are done? Is he aware that certain local authorities delay services, or defer them, for many reasons, one of which is that borough surveyor's and sanitary inspector's departments are suffering from a serious shortage of staff?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend will be aware, if he remembers the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove, that this survey will be carried out by the Social Survey Unit. Glasgow Corporation will be carrying out its own, and is equipped do so do. We are co-ordinating the surveys, and the particular problem to which my hon. Friend refers will not impede us in coming to a firm conclusion on the results of these surveys in the autumn.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that one of the most serious housing problems in Scotland is the difficulty of getting loans for house purchase?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a different question.

Mr. Manuel: Will my hon. Friend make certain that the survey will cover overcrowding in municipal houses as well as ordinary private rented dwellings?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir. We hope that the survey will be comprehensive in every way.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If the Minister publishes any set of statistics such as those indicated in the Question, will he be careful to distinguish between those backward areas which have not provided sufficient houses and those, on the other hand, which are shining examples of progress, like the city of Aberdeen?

Dr. Mabon: When the report is published it will certainly have an analysis of figures. I have no doubt that these matters will become very much apparent, including the enormous success of the city of Aberdeen.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of Order. I was wondering why questions could not be answered on matters to do with house purchase, when it is the overall housing problem that is included in the Question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's question was related to loans for house purchase. I thought that that was a different question from statistics. It is possible to borrow funds, but not statistics—at least, not often. That is the distinction.

Road Accidents

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the increasing number of road accidents, he will institute an inquiry into the causes and possible remedies.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. I doubt whether such an inquiry would add to our present methods of obtaining information about the causes of road accidents. We recognise, however, that independent advice on the serious problems these accidents present may be of great value. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport have set up the National Road Safety Advisory Council.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that many serious accidents with fatal consequences have occurred in the less

congested areas of Scotland, north and south of the industrial belts, and that if appeals are to be made to motorists different appeals should be made in different parts of the country?

Dr. Mabon: I accept that, but my hon. Friend will remember that local authorities are enjoined to help in the propaganda and education associated with road safety matters. They vary in their records. Some local authorities have excellent records, but some leave room for considerable improvement. I hope that these local authorities will look again at the provision that they are making for more education and propaganda on this matter.

Mr. G. Campbell: On the important question of reducing road accidents, have the Government yet evaluated the results of the experiment carried out last year of a 50 m.p.h. speed limit on certain stretches of road?

Dr. Mabon: At the moment, these matters are being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. He is certainly anxious to raise the matter with the new Road Safety Advisory Council which he has established. It is a United Kingdom body. The hon. Member will be aware that two distinguished Scots are members of the Council, one of whom is very well known to hon. Members. I have no doubt that these evaluations will be made.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the particular dangers of three-lane roads, such as that into Glasgow, on which there have been some most unpleasant accidents recently? Will he bear this in mind if he is considering an inquiry, and especially in planning new road programmes?

Dr. Mabon: As one who uses such a road a great deal I appreciate this problem.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the hon. Member aware that the experiment to which I referred was a Scottish experiment and was conducted entirely within Scotland by my right hon. Friend when he was Secretary of State for Scotland last year? Is the Minister aware that we hope that this will be considered as a Scottish question as well as a United Kingdom question?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, but there is experience which we have gained from England in relation to what it is doing, and we in Scotland, in turn, are not ungenerous in trying to give our experience. The useful survey which was carried out by hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite when they formed the Administration will certainly be fully evaluated and its results made known.

New Houses (Services)

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the policy of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and other nationalised boards in offering cheap and free connections for a new house, provided all services in the house are run on their particular product, is fair to the consumer; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Neither of the Scottish Electricity Boards makes the exclusive use of electricity a condition of cheap or free connection to the supply. They relate connection charges to the expected revenue. However, the matter has been raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power in respect of England and Wales and my right hon. Friend will be considering with him whether a change in the present arrangements is called for generally.

Mr. Mackie: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that this is rather a serious point, because one thing for which a nationalised industry comes under fire is if it is inconsistent in its operations in different parts of the country? Is he aware that I get more letters about variations in connection charges than about anything else, and that although it is important that a nationalised industry should adopt the best methods of private enterprise, it is also important that it does not appear to be inconsistent in its actions in different parts of the country?

Dr. Mabon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that a number of my hon. Friends, and some hon. Members opposite, have been raising this matter from time to time. There are consultative councils in both areas which are enjoined to look at applications

to revise tariffs from time to time, and it is to these councils that the inquiries which Members of Parliament seem to be receiving ought to be addressed. It is through them that the most effective pressure may be put on the Board for which, as I have said, my right hon. Friend is not in statute bound.

Legal Aid

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to proposals which would enable the Law Society of Scotland to exercise a discretion in the matter of recovery of funds disbursed in cases of legal aid, recovery of which is at present mandatory under Section 3(4) of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1949.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): The operation of this Section was reviewed about ten years ago. Since then, with the specific exceptions that are allowed by regulation in alimentary cases, the provisions of the Statute have been applied in every case. My right hon. Friend has received no representations that this should be changed.

Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that in fact this subsection begins with the phrase
Except so far as other regulations shall apply";
and that in fact there are no modifying regulations? Is he aware that the Law Society has brought to his Department's attention that hardship is frequently caused by the inability of the Society to exercise discretion? Will he look at this matter again, and is he aware that there are real cases of hardship involved?

Mr. Willis: I am not aware of any representations which have been made about this. We are prepared to look at it again, but it is a difficult problem and I cannot promise that there will be a change.

Mr. Wylie: I agree with the Minister's reply on this matter, but will he take another look at the whole Section, because the effect of it is that where a contribution is assessed on the basis of


capital distress can result? Is he aware, for example, that in a case of which I know personally the whole of the life savings of a widow were absorbed by the contribution and if she loses her case she will lose her life savings? May I ask the Minister to consider that at some future stage?

Mr. Willis: I have already said that we are prepared to look at it, but I cannot promise that we shall necessarily change it.

Cadco Project

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now completed his inquiries into the Cadco project in Glenrothes; and whether he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No. Sir. I discussed questions related to the Cadco project with Glenrothes Development Corporation on 19th December, 5th January and 29th January, and also with representatives of the corporation on 27th February and 26th March. I have still to have a final meeting with the corporation and hope to arrange this soon.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that these are very protracted inquiries? Can he state precisely the reasons why they are so long-drawn-out? Can he indicate when he expects to report to the House, or to me, which is more important from my point of view? Can he say whether he has yet found a tenant for the assets now long idle?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions. I agree that these are somewhat lengthy and protracted "reviews", as the phrase is. The fact is that the more one goes into this matter the more complex it becomes. As my hon. Friend knows, there are other proceedings taking place parallel to the matter being pursued by myself on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I cannot give him a catalogue of all the reasons for the delay. That will become apparent when my right hon. Friend decides to make a statement later on, when I have managed to submit a report to him and he has had an opportunity to inquire into the matter further

himself. I am not in a position to say anything more about the development corporation's efforts to attract a tenant either to the complex of buildings or to the piggeries alone.

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to cancel the debt owed to the Government by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in order to expedite the development of the Highlands.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Board has never made this proposal and my right hon. Friend has no evidence that servicing this loan is seriously restricting the Board's activities.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that I am not suggesting the proposal? Will he consider that, due to the distance of Highland industries from the markets in the South, their prices tend to be inflated? Does he realise that if the Board were permitted to provide the industries with power at cost price, or at a preferential rate, it would help the industries to be more competitive with industry in other parts of the country with which the Highland industries have to compete?

Dr. Mabon: No suggestion from my hon. Friend would ever go unconsidered by my right hon. Friend. I can assure him that the point is well taken. At the present time there is no evidence that the servicing of this loan is severely restricting the Board's activities. Any new hydroelectric scheme authorised would be capable of providing surplus funds other than what was required to meet its capital charges. I have no doubt that if it is possible for the forthcoming review to authorise further capital investment in rural distribution the Board will be able to carry this through without special help.

Club Premises (Hygiene and Safety)

Mr. Garrow: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now take steps to permit the police and fire services to exercise control over unlicensed clubs.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce


legislation to ensure that all clubs catering for the various recreational interests of the public shall be licensed, and that all such clubs conform to standards of hygiene and safety.

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State are at present reviewing the operation of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, in its application to gaming clubs; and fire prevention legislation which will cover club premises is being prepared. As regards hygiene, there are sufficient powers in the Public Health (Scotland) Acts.

Mr. Garrow: Is my hon. Friend aware that during recent years a number of jive and jazz clubs have been set up in Glasgow in basements or attics? Would he agree that these present a fire hazard? Is he aware that the firemaster and the police in Glasgow have repeatedly expressed concern about these places? Is he further aware that in several of the bingo halls in Glasgow not only are all the seats occupied but participants are permitted to occupy the passageways, and does he agree that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Willis: I am aware of the facts my hon. Friend has mentioned. We are preparing suitable fire prevention legislation which is at an advanced stage, but we are not able at the moment to say when it will be introduced.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the Minister agree that the problem is not so much related to the structure of the premises as to the fact that many of them are overcrowded, particularly the jazz clubs? Surely we do not have to wait until there is a great tragedy before some action is taken?

Mr. Willis: As I have indicated, we are pressing ahead with the preparation of legislation. We shall certainly introduce it when we can.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will the Minister keep in mind that it is not just punitive action which is required? Is he aware that if the previous Administration had been more constructive in making funds available for community purposes in the newer housing areas, we should not have had this over-concentration in doubtful premises in the city?

Criminal Cases (Appeals)

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to remedy the situation whereby Scottish law does not grant the right of appeal in criminal cases from the High Court of Justiciary to the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Willis: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the present position.

Mr. Elliott: Is the Minister aware that a distance of 63 miles separates my constituency from Scotland? Is he aware that if any of my constituents wish to motor to Scotland, as often they do, and if while travelling that distance they commit a criminal offence and on conviction wish to appeal, they can do so to the House of Lords, but once they are over the Border into Scotland they cannot? As there is an Act of Union in existence, does not the hon. Gentleman think this is unjust?

Mr. Willis: This position has operated since the Act of Union and, so far as I know, nobody in Scotland is anxious to change it. I would point out that Scotsmen also suffer certain disabilities when they travel south of the Border.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In order to avoid trouble, expense, and inconvenience to Scottish litigants and all who are engaged in litigation in Scotland, will the Minister take steps to see that appeals are finalised in Edinburgh instead of going south to courts outside Scotland?

Mr. Willis: My hon. and learned Friend is on a rather different point—civil appeals rather than criminal appeals.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in England a right of appeal in criminal cases was given some 50 years ago? Would he not think now of giving the same right to Scottish criminals?

Mr. Willis: I have already indicated that we in Scotland do not wish to make the change.

Ambulance Service (Apprentices)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in order


to employ school leavers, he will consult the Scottish Ambulance Service with a view to introducing a comprehensive apprenticeship employment scheme for young workers entering the Ambulance Service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart): I have consulted the Scottish Ambulance Service. It is its policy to recruit as drivers and attendants young men who already have considerable driving experience and are sufficiently mature to deal with the emergencies which arise in the course of their work. These considerations appear to rule out any apprenticeship scheme for the younger school leaver, but I am asking the Ambulance Service to look at the possibility of employing one or two more apprentices in the Central Repair Workshop, Glasgow.

Mr. Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that the training of ambulance attendants covers a number of years? Would she also remember that the handling of human bodies and the maintenance and care of equipment take years of training and exercise? Are these not grounds for introducing an apprenticeship scheme which would employ a number of our school leavers who are at present unable to find jobs?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is done at the moment by way of in-service training. Also, it is essential that ambulances should at all times be driven by experienced persons. He will know the kinds of emergencies which sometimes arise. For example, babies can be born in ambulances. It would not be appropriate to employ young people in this kind of way as part of their training.

Canada and the United States (Visit)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will visit Canada and the United States of America in the near future, with a view to improving trade between these countries and Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have no plans for such a visit in the near future.

Mr. Hutchison: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the example set by

my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), whose visits to Russia and America were most successful? Will he bear in mind that the potential for increased trade between Canada and ourselves and the United States and ourselves is very great and that good will towards Scotland exists in those countries?

Mr. Ross: I remember very well the visit of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when Secretary of State. He went under one Prime Minister and returned under another. According to what he said when he came back, all he knew about it was what he had read in the newspapers. That visit was related, well intentionally, to the industrial development of Scotland. The Question was about improving trade. That is principally the concern of the President of the Board of Trade. I think that personal intervention by the Secretary of State should be reserved for occasions when it would clearly be appropriate and likely to produce tangible and lasting results.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday many anti-American speeches were delivered from the other side of the House indicating that hon. Members opposite regarded America as one of our greatest enemies in trade? Does he not think that he ought to reconsider his decision in order to undo the harm that was done yesterday?

Mr. Ross: I am prepared to reconsider anything, but not in the immediate future will this be undertaken.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider paying a visit to Berwick and East Lothian, because we have not had a glimpse of him for six months and feel that we are being neglected?

Mr. Ross: That is one of the points which arise out of the Question. My immediate preoccupation is to satisfy all the local authorities, Members of Parliament and institutions throughout Scotland who feel that they have been neglected for 13 years and want me on the spot.

Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that we shall be content if in the next nine months he pays some attention to and does some


good for Scotland before he goes to try to improve our relations with the United States?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, judging by the comments that I have received, we have already done far more good in the few months that we have been in office than he did in the years when he was Secretary of State.

Increased Petrol Duty

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give an up to date estimate of the extra cost to industry and agriculture in Scotland of the additional petrol tax imposed last autumn.

Mr. Willis: The estimated cost to agriculture and horticulture in Scotland is about £300,000 in a full year. My right hon. Friend has no means of estimating the cost to industry in Scotland of this additional tax.

Mr. Hutchison: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how this tax and the recent increase in goods vehicles registrations will help industry in Scotland? Why does he not fight for Scotland and do a good deal better, and if he cannot, why does he not resign?

Mr. Willis: These taxes are in the interests of the economy as a whole—they were necessitated by what had taken place before the Labour Government came into office—and Scotland benefits from the country's economy being healthy.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in furthering Scotland's economy, would he not agree that he and his right hon. Friends would have been better employed imposing a larger slice of taxation on motor vehicles generally so that it covered the whole of the United Kingdom instead of applying it very largely to commercial vehicles, which represents a particular disadvantage in relation to the development of industry in Scotland?

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that such figures as he gave indicate that it would be desirable for him to look again at the possibility of applying the tax in a differential fashion throughout Scotland?

Mr. Willis: I understand that that is impracticable.

Western Regional Hospital Board (Building Contracts)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Western Regional Hospital Board intends to have their new hospital building programmed by contractors out-with Scotland; whether this conforms with his policy; and whether he will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: The Board's general policy, with which my right hon. Friend agrees, is to let its contracts after competition among selected contractors, including Scottish firms who ask to compete and who have the necessary resources for the contract concerned. All the main hospital building contracts awarded to date have been let to Scottish firms.
The Board is at present negotiating with two firms of national contractors with headquarters in England for the construction of two maternity units together costing about £2 million as an experiment in the use of their special systems of industrialised building. The labour used will in the main be Scottish.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that that information will be warmly welcomed in Scotland at the present moment, because her predecessors gave both education and road contracts to London-based firms without any competitive tendering being involved? Will she ensure that the Scottish economy gets its due share of investment in Scotland?

Mr. Baxter: Is my hon. Friend aware that this will not give so much pleasure to the contractors of Scotland as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) suggests? If contracts of this nature are let out to English firms, we generally find that the prices which are given to English firms are much higher than those given to Scottish firms, and by virtue of this much of the labour employed by local contractors in Scotland is taken away from the work on which it is presently engaged because the English firms have better prices and can give the men greater incentives?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend will agree that it is very important to encourage


every possible aspect of technological progress in the building industry in Scotland. Here we are concerned in the main with Scottish contracts for Scottish hospital building. In the case in question, a very small amount of the programme is being given to an English firm for the purpose of experimenting with industrialised building techniques as they apply to Scottish hospitals. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that in general the points that he makes are valid.

Teachers

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the extent of the shortage of teachers in Scotland; and what proportion of the shortage is in respect of schools operated by the Glasgow Education Authority.

Mrs. Hart: The education authorities estimated, in October 1964, that they required 3,683 more teachers to fill vacancies, to replace uncertificated teachers and re-employ teachers over the age of 70 and to reduce classes to the presribed maximum sizes. Glasgow Education Authority's estimate was 1,226 one-third of the total.

Mr. Taylor: If Glasgow has one-fifth of the population of Scotland and, as she indicated in a Written Reply only last week, 97 per cent. of all the pupils in Scotland receiving part-time education are in Glasgow, is not there a case for urgent discussion with the Glasgow Corporation to ascertain what special steps need to be taken to deal with this serious situation?

Mrs. Hart: I had such discussions in January. Glasgow's shortage is certainly very serious, but it is not the only area with such difficulties. The Dame Jean Roberts Committee is looking into this. We are constantly discussing the matter with the education authorities, including Glasgow.

Mr. Garrow: Is my hon. Friend aware that on many occasions under the last Government there were discussions between Glasgow Corporation and the then Secretary of State for Scotland on this self-same problem, but that little or no action was taken?

Mrs. Hart: Fundamentally, the question is one of the supply of teachers generally. I think that hon. Members have seen some of the steps which we have recently been taking on this matter. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement shortly on further measures. This is fundamentally the problem, and until it is solved Glasgow's special difficulties cannot be completely met in any ad hoc way.

Estate Owners

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of all owners of more than 50,000 acres in the Highlands area.

Mr. Willis: As the public registers do not generally give the acreage of large estates, it is not possible to identify with any accuracy or precision those holdings which, in aggregate, exceed 50,000 acres.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recognise the very unsatisfactory character of that answer? Will he not take steps to get this information, because otherwise we cannot intelligently discuss the Bill now before the Scottish Grand Committee? Will he consult the Leader of the Opposition, because if we get a list of the subscribers to the Tory Party in Scotland, that will be nearly accurate enough for us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last part of that supplementary question does not lie within the realms of the Minister's responsibility. The other part of the question is in order.

Mr. Willis: I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the lack of this information prevents us from discussing the Highland Development Bill in Committee. I know that it would be interesting to have a list of these owners, but I think that the more important thing is to continue with our work of giving the Highland Development Board powers to see that the land is used in the best way possible and in the national interest, no matter who the owner may be.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the Under-Secretary of State think of giving in HANSARD the acres owned by British Railways and possibly by some other nationalised industries?

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that no return of this nature has been published since 1873, and that, since such a return was then possible, it is reasonable to ask whether it is not possible to do so now? Will he notice that I have a Question down within the next few weeks asking for this?

Mr. Willis: I have noted that Question. I am also aware that there has been no return since 1873. It is true that it would be possible to get this information, but as I pointed out in my previous answer, we feel that it is more important to get on with the job than to gather this information.

New School Places

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new school places will have to be provided to meet the requirements of the higher school leaving age; and whether he is satisfied that the present building programme is adequate.

Mrs. Hart: In consultation with my right hon. Friend's Department, education authorities are assessing their likely building requirements for the raising of the age. The present building programme goes only to autumn 1967 and does not cover these needs except where they are incorporated in new schools due to start before then. Subsequent programmes will take specific account of the additional needs.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern among education authorities, that if these new schools and extensions are to be completed in time for raising the school-leaving age in 1970 decisions will have to be taken this year? Will she do all she can to speed up taking these decisions so that the programme may go forward in time?

Mrs. Hart: Yes. This is a matter of real urgency. As the hon. Member knows, the announcement was originally made in January 1964. Some work was done between then and October. We have been trying to speed this up. Certainly discussions with the authorities are being regarded as matters on which we hope to have reached a conclusion within a very short time.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Lady confirm whether the present building programme is up to date?

Mrs. Hart: The building programme is up to date in so far as local authorities are able to complete their building projects in the time within which they hoped to complete them. This is very largely a matter of the efficiency of the building industry, of the pre-planning and of the technological aspects of school building, to which we have been giving a great deal of attention.

Lime and Fertiliser Subsidies

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the increase in costs to Scottish dairy farmers caused by the reduction in the lime and fertiliser subsidies; and how much this represents in pence or fraction of pence per gallon produced.

Mr. Willis: The effect of this reduction will vary from farm to farm, depending upon the extent of the particular change in efficiency and input. Any general estimate would be misleading.

Mr. Brewis: Has the Minister seen that the price given by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board will average only 0·61d. and that this reduction has to come off the farmer? Does the hon. Member think that dairy farmers' increased costs were recouped in the last Price Review?

Mr. Willis: Increased costs were taken fully into consideration at the last Price Review.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that in the present hard times for dairy farmers it is essential to get the maximum production from grass? Does he further realise that the increase in costs of fertiliser and lime are a very serious handicap?

Mr. Willis: I cannot accept that this will be a very serious handicap. In fact, the increase will be very, very small. In any case, I imagine that most dairy farmers will still find it profitable to keep up their use of fertilisers and lime.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend recognise the difference in the attitude of the Opposition to subsidies to a nationalised industry such as coal and


subsidies to a privately-owned industry such as farming? Can he say why subsidies should be given at all for fertilisers, the use of which is in any case very good husbandry?

Beef

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the supply of beef-type calves is adequate to meet the demands of the market; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Willis: The Goverment consider that a moderate expansion of home production of beef is required and the recent Annual Review settlement included various measures designed to encourage the supply of beef-type calves.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that 80 per cent. of beef calves come from dairy herds? Does he consider that the inadequate award given to milk producers in the Price Review is sufficient to ensure such supplies being forthcoming in future years?

Mr. Willis: I think that the overall benefits given for this purpose will achieve the aim which we had in mind—which was to bring about a slight increase.

Mr. Stodart: When the Minister talks about a moderate expansion, has he realised that by 1970 there will be two million more people in this island? Has he worked out how many more beef cattle will be needed to feed them? It is far more than a modest increase.

Mr. Willis: All these factors were taken into consideration by my two right hon. Friends.

Sugar Beet

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average financial return per acre to sugar beet growers in the Cupar sugar factory area in the 1964 season.

Mr. Willis: The average net return per acre to sugar beet growers in contract with the Cupar factory in 1964 is estimated at about £9 10s.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does not the continued decline in the acreage being grown for sugar beet factories show that the average grower in Scotland is only just covering his costs? In view of the fact that 60 per cent. of the cost of beet growing arises from the cost of labour and the cost of fertilisers, and that both are now rising, is there not an urgent need to reconsider the price paid for sugar beet in Scotland?

Mr. Willis: The figure of £9 10s. which I gave as the return for this year is the highest since 1961. I agree that there has been a fall in acreage. The British Sugar Corporation seems to have confidence in the future of the Cupar factory, which would at least indicate that it feels that the acreage is not likely to fall much lower, if at all.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Member aware that the sugar beet acreage in Scotland serving the Cupar factory has fallen very sharply in recent years and that the increased price to which he refers is barely enough to meet the increased costs, and the increasing costs, which farmers are meeting? Will he give serious attention to this problem, which is of great concern to farming in the locality and which is putting the future of this crop in jeopardy?

Mr. Willis: I remind the hon. Member that there was an increase of 2s. 6d. per ton in the price at the last Review and that the acreage went up from 1953, when it was not much higher than it is now, and that it has since tended to fall. One has to take a long view of this matter to see what is happening.

Herring Industry Board (Chairman)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what other public appointments are held by the Chairman of the Herring Industry Board.

Mr. Willis: The Chairman of the Board is also Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Economic Planning Council and a member of the British Productivity Council, the National Council for Employment of the Disabled, and the Glasgow (Springburn) Local Employment Committee.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the vicechairmanship of the new Economic


Council of such importance as to demand a great deal of Mr. Middleton's time? If it was considered to be so essential by his right hon. Friend to make this change, was there no alternative appointment among competent people who are supporters of the Labour Party in Scotland?

Mr. Willis: The job of the Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Economic Council is not a full-time one. Neither is the job of the Chairman of the Herring Industry Board. It is calculated that the chairmanship of the Herring Industry Board takes up approximately twoand-a-half days a week, which leaves Mr. Middleton with the remainder of the week in which to perform his other various duties.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister of State satisfied with having in this very important office a man of vast experience, with no other paid appointments, who can devote his whole time to the work of the Herring Industry Board, in contrast with his predecessor in that job, and how does his record compare with that of his predecessor in this office?

Mr. Willis: His predecessor was deputy chairman of the Independent Television Authority, a member of the Scottish Gas Board and a director of Fisons Ltd. In contrast, the employments held by Mr. Middleton are all unpaid.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Charolais Cattle

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of the State for Scotland what reports he has received on trials carried out on Charolais cattle in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend has received regular progress reports on the official comparative trials being carried out in Scotland, but he feels that it would be unwise to comment on these trials until the full report is available.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware of the indignation expressed by the National Cattle Breeders Association about the very limited scope of the trials carried out and the compete lack of information about them? In view of the great importance and the reputation of the cattle

breeding industry in Scotland, Will not the hon. Gentlemen reconsider this matter and let people know the results of the trials?

Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the full reports on the trials. When he does he will consider what should be done with them. In regard to there being great indignation, I am informed that opinion in Scotland was divided. I could give a rough list showing the division of opinion if the hon. Gentleman requires it. The fact remains that various societies disagreed among themselves about whether or not this was desirable and that the Scottish N.F.U. expressed no opinion at all.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the Minister of State consider publishing an interim report about these trials, which would represent a great source of guidance to breeders in Scotland, which would help them to know what kind of crossing to follow and which would lay at rest a lot of uncertainty which at present exists among breeders of Scotland's traditional breeds?

Mr. Willis: We will, of course, look into that matter.

Peel Hospital

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the hospital building programme so as to include a replacement for the Peel Hospital in the current list of projects.

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend is considering the needs of the Borders in his review of the hospital building programme, but other priorities being what they are, I cannot yet forecast a date for replacing Peel Hospital.

Mr. Steel: Is the Under-Secretary able to say whether the present economic study of the Borders will include a review of the question of this Border hospital? If so, can we expect a change in the present position when the report is published? Is she aware that the two arguments in favour of this replacement are, first, that it is badly sited and, secondly, that it is a temporary, war-time, wooden hutted hospital and that the only modern part of it is the morgue? Will Labour's modernisation plans extend to this life as well as the hereafter?

Mrs. Hart: Modernisation plans certainly include making good some of the deficiencies in our geriatric and maternity accommodation in the area of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. This, I think he will agree, is as important a matter as a replacement for the Peel Hospital, which is at present giving good service to the people in the area. As to the question of the site, obviously any new hospital which is eventually built should be appropriate to the development of the area. In general, the Regional Hospital Board is considering various sites, but for the eventual decision we will have to wait until we have a clear indication of the pattern of development.

Potatoes

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average price received by potato growers in Scotland in each of the last three seasons; how these compare with the present season; and by how much these prices have been above or below the guarantee price.

Mr. Willis: The estimated average grower's price per ton in Scotland for the last three seasons has been as follows: 1961–62, £17 13s. 10d.; 1962–63, £17 5s. 7d.; 1963–64£15 6s. 3d. In each of these seasons the guaranteed price was exceeded, the respective amounts being £4 8s. 10d., £4 0s. 7d. and £1 1ls. 3d. Comparable figures are not yet available for the present season, although some reduction on the last three years' figures is expected.

Sir J. Gilmour: Is it not a fact that up to the end of February the figures showed that for the first time ever the return to Scottish potato growers has been below the guaranteed price? Is this not due to the dilatory lack of action on the part of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in initiating the support buying programmes in time? Will the Minister of State confirm that this is the first time that this has happened in recent years?

Mr. Willis: I understand that by 3rd April the estimated average growers' price was £12 14s. 9d. This figure was expected to rise gradually, as it usually does, between now and the end of the year, but there are some doubts as to whether it will reach the guaranteed price.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the activities of my two right hon. Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the last 12 years I have been receiving regular letters from farmers in my constituency strongly attacking the previous Government because they were letting in Cyprus potatoes and so ruining the Tory farmers of Ayrshire? Will my hon. Friend try to do something to help in this respect?

Mr. Willis: I recognise that there is a problem.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that a very influencing factor here is the reduction in the market for Scottish seed potatoes owing to the discovery in the south of how to treat various diseases? Is he aware that this is resulting in a reduction of returns to Scottish potato growers and will he bear this in mind in considering possibly a new system of operating the guarantees?

Mr. Willis: We recognise that there is something in that, but the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that this is not the only factor operating here. Indeed, the whole system is at present being reviewed by Ministers along with the Farmers' Union.

Sir J. Gilmour: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Factory-Built Houses

The Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the houses to be completed this year will involve factory-built methods.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: About one-fifth of the public sector programme.

The Earl of Dalkeith: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Would he not agree that one of the main obstacles to faster house building in many parts of Scotland is the shortage of skilled labour? What steps is he going to take to encourage an increase in the construction of houses by industrialised methods, which may be one solution to this problem?

Dr. Mabon: The noble Lord will be aware that my right hon. Friend and I have had many meetings with local authorities. Only last Friday we had a meeting with the National Building Agency and 85 local authorities to try to convince them of the importance of the Agency and of industrialised building methods which, as he rightly indicated, will help us to save labour when we are so short of skilled labour for house building. Then there is the work of the S.L.A.S.H. consortium. That work is beginning and we would like to see more local authorities taking part in consortia as they are arranged. I hope that we will manage to secure some this year.

Mr. G. Campbell: Can the Minister say what proportion of factory built houses have been built in factories in Scotland and is his right hon. Friend giving every encouragement to this industry in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I should, perhaps, make it clear that when I answered the Question I was referring to industrialised building, which includes the whole question of mechanised on-site building methods such as "no-fines" concrete. Having made that reservation, I can give the assurance that we are trying to encourage more new establishments to set up in Scotland. There are already seven factories in existence and at least one more will go to Scotland. We are interested in other systems and perhaps they will develop.

Rates

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what rise he expects in rates in Scotland in 1965–66; what this represents in shillings and pence; and what action he will take to reduce this burden.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On average, the rate poundage may increase by 4 per cent., which represents elevenpence per£of rateable value. This represents an increase to the average ratepayer of about 30s. per annum. Action to reduce the burden of rates will follow the review which we are making of local government finance.

Mr. Brewis: Does the Under-Secretary of State remember that in his

election manifesto he is committed to giving early relief to ratepayers, and can he let us know when he expects some of these interminable reviews to result in some action?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being characteristically rather unfair today—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I am sorry. I mean that he is being uncharacteristically unfair—it makes a difference—in saying that. He will recall that in the debate on the General Grant Order that we introduced within six weeks or so of our taking office, we made provision of£1 million extra in 1965–66 to start at the beginning of the financial year for this specific purpose. He will also recognise that we have inherited this system from the previous Administration, and that we cannot make changes in it without the fullest possible inquiry. The local authorities financial provisions review has been going on steadily since we came into office, and we shortly hope to have the results which may enable the Government to take decisions which will have an impact, not only in Scotland, but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that he is being uncharacteristically misleading in stating that there has been an increase in general grant, observing that the recently announced general grants for 1965–66 and 1966–67 indicate that the Exchequer will be meeting precisely the same proportion of local government expenditure in Scotland as in recent years?
Would he further agree that since this announcement there have been several Government financial policies which have had a serious effect on Scotland, as can be seen from yesterday's appalling news that the Corporation of Glasgow is suspending its house purchase loans scheme?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has a good memory but does not recollect the debate on the General Grant Order which not only increased the amount in 1965–66 in regard to the whole of the General Grant Order but meant an increase by this Government over the amount promised by the previous Administration of £2 million, which is a pretty good implementation of a promise so early in our first year.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take following the finding in paragraph 357 of the Report of the Allen Committee, on the Impact of Rates on Households, that the high level of rates in Scotland subsidises the low level of rents.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We are considering the Committee's findings in the course of our current review of local government finance.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the ratepayers of Scotland feel that they are carrying an excessive burden? Will his right hon. Friend very seriously take into account this clear finding of the committee set up for the specific purpose of inquiring into the impact of rates?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman will clearly recognise that this committee was analysing a system established by the previous Administration. Therefore, if any strictures are to be passed on it, hon. Gentlemen opposite must accept their responsibility for creating that system. We are looking not only at the question of local government finance, which is very relevant, but at the question of housing subsidies, and the two together will help us, perhaps, to devise a system better than the Opposition were able to create.

Mr. Campbell: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that we have made our policies perfectly clear, and did everything we could to try to restore the balance in Scotland, and that if what he says is now new policy for the party opposite we are delighted to hear it?

Dr. Mabon: I am not aware of anything of the kind. The hon. Gentleman did nothing to change a great deal of the present system of which he complains. For example, in the Housing Acts there was no particular provision to change what he and his right hon. Friends complain about now, 13 years later, which is very unfair of them.

Industrial Development

The Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities, sited outwith development districts, have officially approached him

on the subject of industrial development since he assumed responsibility for regional planning throughout Scotland.

Mr. Willis: Since my right hon. Friend assumed responsibility for regional economic planning in Scotland, he has received representations from seven Scottish local authorities outside development districts on the general question of the industrial development of their areas.

The Earl of Dalkeith: As the previous Administration made considerable progress with regenerating the central industrial belt, does not the Minister of State think that the time has now come to consider expanding the designation of both districts to include many other parts of Scotland, including the Border, which by their further development would help the Scottish economy, and, perhaps, help with some of the further away problems in places like Glasgow? Can he not look at this matter very seriously now?

Mr. Willis: The present activities of the Scottish Economic Planning Council are designed for this purpose.

Kilsyth-Longcroft Road

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the improvements to the Kilsyth-Longcroft road are to be commenced; and when is the estimated finishing date.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Stirling County Council was informed in December, 1963, that grant could be found for a scheme costing £100,000 on this road. My right hon. Friend will willingly consider any proposal that may be put forward within that limit.

Mr. Baxter: Is my hon. Friend aware that £100,000 will never even look at the road improvement necessary on the Kilsyth-Longcroft road; and that such a sum would only take in about a mile or a mile and a half at the most? Would he look again at this problem to see whether he could not give a larger grant towards work on a very important road which is very much in need of repair and improvement?

Dr. Mabon: I agree that there is a great deal of sense in what my hon. Friend says about this road, but it is a


question of priorities. The reconstructed trunk road A80—Glasgow to Denny—runs parallel to this road through Kilsyth. It is difficult, having in mind the pressure for money in Scotland for road development all over, to find more money for this road at this time. I would strongly suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be useful for him to invite the Stirlingshire County Council to look again at the invitation given by my right hon. Friend to consider using this £100,000 in some way to improve this road. After all, half a loaf is always better than no bread.

Mr. Baxter: It is not half a loaf at all—it a crumb from the rich man's table. If my hon. Friend looks at the amount of money spent south of the Border compared with what is spent north of the Border, he will realise that we are not getting a fair share. This is a road of great importance, not only to Kirkintilloch and Dunbartonshire, but to Kilsyth and Stirling and the development of the whole Clyde Valley. I hope that my hon. Friend will look again at the position here.

Infectious Disease (Absence from Work)

Mr. Baxter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to bring the law of Scotland into line with the law of England so as to place the obligation upon the local authority to compensate a person who has to stay off work in order to prevent the spreading of infectious disease.

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend intends to look at this question in the course of a general review of Scottish public health legislation which his Department is beginning; it is hoped that the review will be completed this year.

Mr. Baxter: May I express the hope that when reviewing the matter, my hon. Friend will take into consideration the excellent position that exists in England in this respect and seek to apply those principles to the law of Scotland?

Mrs. Hart: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are very much aware of the point he has in mind, and we shall certainly be looking very closely at the possibility of including it in the reports that are to be made.

Educational Needs

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he is doing into the educational needs which arise from overspill agreements and other population movements.

Mrs. Hart: I am making arrangements with the Local Government Operational Research Unit of the Royal Institute of Public Administration for a study of the methods by which requirements for school places arising from population movement may be forecast. The study will be concentrated upon Scottish new towns, where the education authorities and the new town development corporations have promised their full co-operation, but I hope that forecasting techniques will be applicable to other areas of population increase and movement.

Mr. Dalyell: I welcome this new initiative. Will the unit give urgent consideration to the Linlithgow-Whitburn type of problem, with which the Minister is familiar?

Mrs. Hart: The kind of information thrown up by this study and the forecasting techniques which may emerge should be of great assistance in enabling an authority such as the West Lothian authority to make much more accurate assessments of priority of problems. The general purpose of this study is to assist education authorities in this way.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Would not the hon. Lady consider the suggestion I have already put forward that some money should be allocated to the Scottish Special Housing Association for the specific purpose of building schools in such an area as this, and would not this meet much more quickly the urgent requirements for just such an area as that in which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I have an interest?

Mrs. Hart: One of the difficulties with which we are faced is that for the commitments we are anxious to undertake with building programmes of all kinds, we find that the resources bequeathed to us by the late Government are not sufficient for our purpose. As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well,


he and his hon. Friends did nothing at all to encourage the technological efficiency of the building industry in Scotland, which is what we are setting our minds to do.

Miss Harvie Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

The Borders (Economic Future)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that the Report on the economic future of the Borders, on which work is now well advanced, will be made public as soon as he receives it.

Mr. Willis: No Sir. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 15th March.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Arising out of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he and his Department will not sit on this Report but, on the contrary, will have it published without delay when it is received?

Mr. Willis: We shall not sit on the Report, but we shall not publish it at the moment because we feel that it would be clearly misleading to publish this preliminary study in isolation. The proposals for the economic future of the area could be very important in relation to the needs of the other regions of Scotland and for the national plan.

Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the study is sufficiently wide to include a review of welfare facilities, including a new hospital?

Mr. Willis: No, it is mainly concentrated on the industrial development of the area.

BROADCASTING FINANCE

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permisison, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about B.B.C. finance.
As the House knows, after the Report of the Pilkington Committee, the previous Government asked the B.B.C. to

undertake a major expansion of their services. It was invited to launch B.B.C. 2, to develop self-contained television services for Scotland and Wales, to extend the hours of sound broadcasting, to undertake more adult education programmes and to make a start with colour television.
In its first White Paper on the Pilkington Report, the previous Government said, Cmnd. 1770, paragraph 59:
The proposals … will mean increased B.B.C. expenditure. The Government accepts its responsibility to see that the B.B.C. can secure sufficient income to finance adequate services.
This undertaking was not fulfilled.
Last October, on taking office, I received from the B.B.C. an estimate for the five years ending March, 1969, which revealed that if the licence was not increased the cumulative deficit would rise to £125 million during that period. It asked for a combined licence of £6 and a sound only licence of £1 5s. which would just be sufficient to meet this expenditure during that period.
Faced with this mounting deficit, the Government have decided that the whole question of broadcasting finance requires further study and I shall be asking the B.B.C. to co-operate in this review.
Meanwhile, I shall not authorise any increase in the hours of broadcasting, whether by the B.B.C. or Independent Television. The date for the introduction of colour television cannot in any case be fixed until the implications of the Vienna Conference have been fully considered.
In the meantime, we cannot allow public service broadcasting to be destroyed for lack of finance and I shall, therefore, be laying before Parliament shortly after the Easter Recess proposals to increase the licence fees from the 1st August, 1965, to £5 for the combined sound and television licence and £1 5s. for the sound licence.
I shall also be introducing, on the same date, special cards which will be obtainable at any Post Office, on which people can affix National Savings Stamps over the year to the number required to exchange their card for a licence.
The review will be completed as soon as possible. It must be seen as a part of the wider review of broadcasting


policy which the Government are undertaking, which includes the development of educational broadcasting, the allocation of the fourth channel and local broadcasting.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will be grateful that he has made a formal announcement of the facts which all hon. Members have been reading about over the past few hours? The figures which he has set out we shall, of course, have to study.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the 'Corporation is using its borrowing powers to the full? Is he satisfied that this is the only way to raise income? Is he satisfied that this organisation is conducted with the best economy and that there is a competitive spirit in sales and purchasing?
While most hon. Members will welcome the system of spreading payment for this increased licence, which certainly would be a great help to many people, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the concern which undoubtedly will be felt at yet another increase in prices, especially by some people who are not very happy at the B B.C.'s current attitude to some of its national responsibilities?

Mr. Benn: I have no doubt that hon. and right hon. Members will study the figures, but the B.B.C. presented the identical figures time and again to the party opposite when it was in power and hon. Members opposite did nothing whatever about that. There is nothing new about the figures. The previous Government asked the B.B.C. to undertake these jobs and then denied the Corporation the money. This is another example of their total failure to cost their so-called five-year programme.
I have studied as closely as hon. Members opposite the speculation in the Press. All the newspapers came out with totally different stories. The Daily Telegraph said that Ministers were tight-lipped about the matter and the obvious assumption was a £6 licence, so I do not think that there is anything in that.
The B.B.C. has borrowing powers, but, unlike a commercial undertaking, borrowing money does not bring in a

greater return. For the B.B.C. borrowing can only mean borrowing to spend. Increased investment does not bring it more money as it does for commercial firms. The only source of revenue it has is the licence fee.

Mr. Atkinson: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will appreciate the terrible blow that this will be to pensioners and others. The premature comment from hon. Members opposite is completely out of place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I come back to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will appreciate the terrible effect that this will have on the listening hours and pleasure which old people get from broadcasting as a whole. Would my right hon. Friend undertake to have a look at joining this new scheme of payment by stamps or weekly contributions through the Post Office, after consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, to a possible scheme which could be devised to help pensioners, infirm and handicapped people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—over this problem of getting a licence?

Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend will realise, the possibility of special relief for pensioners was very much in my mind. I have examined it carefully, but it simply is not practicable to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—for the reason that many pensioners live with their children. The possibility of isolating the particular group concerned poses problems of a social service kind which the Post Office is not able to undertake. One must keep this question in proportion. A person who rents a television set pays many shillings a week, but for each viewer the increase is ¼d. a day.

Mr. Grimond: The Postmaster-General said that he will not authorise any increase in the hours of broadcasting, but does that apply to sound radio? I understand that ours is one of the few countries which does not have sound broadcasting for 24 hours a day. As to television, is he aware that there is now a great difference in many parts of the country? Some do not receive B.B.C. 2, and some have very poor reception of B.B.C. 1. Is there not a case for some diminution in


the fee for those who do not receive a full service?
Will the proposal in relation to National Savings stamps help people who are hard put to it to find the fee, as they are unlikely to be savers? Has he taken this into account in the scheme?

Mr. Benn: There will be no increase in the hours of broadcasting until the review is completed. The reason for this is obvious. For every additional hour of broadcasting, extra money is expended. This is something which can and should, in our opinion, stand as it is until the review is completed. B.B.C. sound hours have increased recently, and, therefore, at least some of the night listeners—early in the morning and very late at night—have now got music when they did not get it before.
We have considered the question of making regional variations in the licence fee, but it simply is not practicable to do anything about it. For this reason, that the people in the regions who do not yet receive B.B.C.2 are, by their licences, financing the arrival of B.B.C.2. This has always been the principle that the B.B.C. has adopted. Outlying areas are very much more costly to cover with transmitters than urban areas. I think that I am right in saying that the most recent areas the B.B.C. is planning to cover cost about £10 a viewer in transmitter costs alone. So there is already a big urban subsidy to rural areas.
Thirdly, it is not possible to have a licence fee related to reception, otherwise all sorts of anomalies are opened up in individual cases.
The system of savings stamps is not perfect, but it will meet one of the major objections to any increase in the licence fees that people are asked to find a substantial sum of money at one time. I think that this scheme will make a contribution to easing that problem.

Mr. Winterbottom: Does not my right hon. Friend think that a review of the whole of the B.B.C. finances was called for before making this announcement, so that we could have known precisely where we were? Does not my right hon. Friend think that a completely disproportionate amount of B.B.C. finances has been devoted to the Metropolis and that there

has been a considerable neglect of the provinces up to now, irrespective of B.B.C.2? From this point of view, does not my right hon. Friend think that the review is long overdue?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. With the deficit running at the rate of over £1 million a month, or £40,000 a day, I do not think that it would be practicable to postpone any action until the review has been completed. In fact, the Pilkington Committee considered the B.B.C.'s expenditure and its handling of its own expenditure and said that it was satisfied that effective cost accounting took place in the B.B.C. I do not think that in a big organisation like this administrative savings, however great they might be, would be anything like sufficient to offset the increased expenditure brought about by more hours and greater coverage.
As to regional development, the B.B.C. needs this money, not because of cost inflation, but because it has been asked, with the good will of both sides of the House, to undertake a major expansion into the regions and into Scotland and Wales. For these reasons, I do not foresee the possibility of a greater cut-back.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the net result of this announcement is that viewers will have to pay more money at once and get nothing extra in return, with the likelihood, of an even greater charge to follow? The net result of that is that there will be no encouragement for people to buy new sets and replace existing sets. The industry which is making sets had hoped that the second channel on B.B.C. T.V. would help it with its sales. This has not happened.
Would the Postmaster-General add to his announcement that, to give some inducement to the viewer for the extra money that he is being asked to pay, he will consider giving a second channel to commercial T.V. and that he will consider extending sound broadcasting to local townships? In this way the viewer would be getting something more for the extra money he is being asked to pay and the Postmaster-General would be encouraging the manufacture of new sets.

Mr. Benn: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, has a


great interest in this matter, it is simply not true to say that viewers are getting nothing for this. What they will get is a rapid expansion of B.B.C.2–50 per cent. coverage this year and 70 per cent. coverage next year. What has happened here, as in many other cases, is that the party opposite made the promises and left us to meet the bill.

Mr. Michael Foot: If, under pressure from the Opposition, my right hon. Friend is looking for some more money to provide for television and sound broadcasting, would he have another look at the fat profits being made by Independent Television, which, apparently, are being siphoned off into all kinds of enterprises up and down the country which have nothing to do with broadcasting?

Mr. Benn: If my hon. Friend reads my statement he will see that it covers broadcasting finance. One of the things we are now considering is the financing of a rapid expansion of broadcasting into new fields, including the fourth channel.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is quite apparent that we cannot debate this now.

TERRITORIAL ARMY EMERGENCY RESERVES (CALL-UP)

The Deputy Secretary of State for Defence and Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve.
The House will recall that this Reserve—the "Ever-readies"—was set up in 1962 to provide a source of individual reinforcement for units under strength in areas of tension. Its members are all volunteers who receive a special bounty of £150 a year in return for an obligation to serve for up to six months. The "Ever-readies" have done very well during training in overseas theatres with Regular Army units. So far, none of them has been called out for service under their liability.
My right hon. Friend has now decided to exercise his powers under Section 3 of the Army Reserve Act, 1962, to call

up about 175 members of the "Ever-readies" for service with the Regular Army in the Middle East, in the Far East, and with the United Nations force in Cyprus.
The necessity for this step springs from the fact that the Army has been engaged continuously in emergency operations overseas for over two years. This has had a cumulative effect and creates difficulties which are serious, though, I hope, temporary.
We now have on emergency tours overseas without their families a brigade headquarters, nine infantry battalions, two armoured car squadrons, one artillery regiment, two engineer squadrons and about 600 individual soldiers.
The result is that many men in the Army have not had much opportunity of home service and of being united with their families. The long-term effect of this on recruitment and re-engagement in the Regular Army cannot be disregarded.
The officers and men to be called out are mainly infantry, together with small numbers of officers and men of the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Intelligence Corps and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
The men selected for call-out will receive their orders within a few days. All of them will get at least a month's notice of call-out. This is the first occasion on which members of the T.A.E.R. have been called out for normal service with the Regular Army, with whom they have been undergoing periods of training. I am sure that they will discharge their obligations with credit.

Mr. Soames: As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is the first time that this Reserve has been called out. It was always designed to be at the immediate disposal of the Secretary of State. It seems that this is a comparatively small call-up of 175 men. They will be scattered over a number of theatres.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how they will be divided between the different theatres? I understand that he cannot commit himself far into the future, but is this, in the situation as he sees it at present, a once-for-all call-up, or does he envisage that this will be the first


of other announcements to the effect that other men will be called up?
Finally, Section 4(3) of the Army Reserve Act, 1962, imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State for Defence to keep the House informed on occasions when this Reserve is called to the colours. The right hon. Gentleman has said that all these men will receive at least one month's notice of call-out. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed on this.

Mr. Mulley: I am glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will keep the House informed. Indeed, the Act imposes on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the obligation to tell the House from time to time, but we thought it right, before taking any steps to implement this decision, that the House should be first informed. That is why I have made this statement today. We certainly have no plans, in the light of existing commitments, for further call-up, but if circumstances change we should have to consider the situation in the light of the changed circumstances.
As to the theatres, the main body to be called up is a company to reinforce the Royal Sussex Battalion going to Aden. The other categories are key specialist personnel to fill vacancies in a number of units in all three Commands—Middle East, Far East and Cyprus.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend telling the House that the state of the Army is such that we need to call-up 175 men to repair these deficiencies?

Mr. Mulley: This is a very simple question to pose. Of course, we would find these men and continue to find numbers of men to meet a grave operational need, but we have to have regard to the question of enabling soldiers to spend a reasonable time with their families. Again, it does not make very much sense to take a number of key personnel from a unit in this country or elsewhere, which might be called upon to fill an emergency role, and use them in a particular unit already in the Far East or Aden.
A great deal of the difficulty arises because throughout last year individuals and units were being sent out on six

months and nine months' emergency tours without their families, and it would be very bad for morale if we did not bring them back on the dates promised. It is a case of replacing these personnel now, and I believe after very careful thought that this is the best way to do it.

Mr. Younger: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the soldiers who are being called up are certain to get their jobs back when they finish? Will he do his best to ensure, certainly so far as the infantry are concerned, that they get a chance to serve as far as possible with their own regiments?

Mr. Mulley: We are giving priority to all the "Ever-readies" who belong to the Royal Sussex Battalion, and the rest will be taken up from the Home Counties Brigade—the brigade of which the Royal Sussex Battalion forms a part. We shall not go beyond that brigade in order to find the infantry.
The 1962 Act guarantees the return of jobs on exactly the same basis as the National Service Acts.

Mr. Lipton: Are any hon. Members of the House covered by this call-up?

Mr. Mulley: I have no information that any hon. Members are also members of the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, but if my hon. Friend has any candidates in mind, no doubt we can have a word about it afterwards.

Mr. Goodhart: Can the Minister say why it should be necessary to call up personnel of the Royal Engineers and of the R.E.M.E.? I understood that recruiting in these two corps has been particularly good.
No doubt, the Minister will be aware that the way in which he has had to make this statement will cause considerable uncertainty amongst all members of the "Ever-readies", although only about 5 per cent. of them will be called up. Has he any proposals for ending this period of uncertainty as quickly as possible? Will he write to all those members of the "Ever-readies" who are not to be called up, as well as those who are to be called up, to say that they are not needed at this point?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman has underlined a great difficulty for Ministers.


We could have sent out notices to all the people concerned so that there would have been no uncertainty before we made a public statement to the House, but I would have thought that the possibility of this being disclosed to the newspapers ahead of time was extremely likely, and we thought it our first duty to inform, the House of Commons.
If one takes this view, there must be inconvenience to the soldiers concerned. We informed the House first, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend expressed the view that that was the right course. We shall, of course, send out the notices as soon as possible.
As to the question about the infantry, we shall not go beyond the Home Counties Brigade. The Royal Engineers and the R.E.M.E. are specialists who are in short supply and, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his own visit to the Far East, one of the difficulties in the Far East theatre is that whereas a number of trades might be performed by civilians in Germany or in other parts, in Borneo we have to employ the military to do maintenance work.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Teacher Recruitment

Mr. Hamling: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th April, I shall draw attention to the special measures needed for teacher recruitment, and move a Resolution.

Northern Ireland (Political Problems)

Mr. Rose: I beg to give notice that on Friday 30th April, I shall call attention to the political problems of Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.

Social Security

Mr. Dean: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th April, I shall call attention to the need to reshape our system of social security, and move a Resolution.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES)

3.57 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the limit of three miles from residence in respect of subsistence allowances payable to magistrates under Section 8 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949.
May I say at once that I have no vested interest in this matter. I am not a magistrate, and my wife, who is a magistrate, lives well beyond three miles of the courts which she attends. This is a case where there exists a ridiculous state of affairs which should have been remedied long ago, and which I hope ultimately will be remedied, as one of the measures which are necessary to give voluntary servants a proper and reasonable allowance for subsistence while they are actually engaged in their work.
In 1949, it was decided that justices of the peace might receive lodging and travelling allowances but not the normal subsistence allowance. This has been a matter of some concern to justices of the peace since then, because they get no loss of earnings allowance and their work has greatly increased, not only through the increase of crime but because of Measures such as the Licensing Act and the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act.
At this moment the integration of the London courts which has just taken place has caused a considerable increase of work falling to the lay justices. The principle of flat-rate subsistence allowances for justices was agreed last year, but the Justices Allowances Regulations, 1964, No. 853, dated 11th June, 1964, lay down that
A justice is not entitled to subsistence allowance if the duties are performed not more than three miles from his usual place of residence.
This is three miles, not as the Serpentine or the Thames flows, but as the crow flies. These allowances are 10s. for not less than four hours from the time of leaving home to returning home, or 17s. for over eight hours from home to time.
In London and large cities it is literally impossible, in an hour's break from court, to get home, prepare lunch, have lunch and get back. Even for those fortunate enough to have someone to prepare the lunch, it is still not possible to


get through the traffic unless one lives practically next door to the court. In practice, what happens is that either three justices go to lunch together and one of them has to pay for himself while the other two get their lunches paid for them, or, of three justices sitting together, two go out to lunch while the third has to eat sandwiches in the retiring room. Court buildings generally are not situated in affluent residential areas and the result of the Regulation is that the disability falls on those least able to bear it.
There are about 16,000 lay justices in the country who carry out over 50 per cent. of the work of the magistrates' courts. There are only about 30 metropolitan magistrates and only 13 stipendiaries in the rest of the country, so the 16,000 lay magistrates bear the greatest burden. In some cities there are no stipendiaries and all the work is done by lay magistrates. In other cities, it is shared between stipendiaries and lay magistrates. In the juvenile courts, the whole of the work is done by the lay justices who, in London, frequently sit until six o'clock or seven o'clock in the evening to complete their list for the day.
So that the House may assess the position rightly, I would point out that stipendiary magistrates receive a salary of £4,500 to £4,750 in London and a little less in some other parts of the country. By estimating the sittings of the lay justices, and if the work they are doing were to be carried out by stipendiaries, we find that it would cost the nation not less than £20 million a year for sufficient stipendiaries to do all the work.
To be fair, and permit all lay justices to get the 10s. or 17s. subsistence, the amount that the country would have to spend is practically infinitesimal. Other groups of persons giving their services voluntarily to the nation, such as unpaid members or witnesses of commissions and committees set up by the Government, have no restriction on the distance from home for their subsistence allowance and, in addition, they can, in certain circumstances, also claim loss of earnings.
The principle of these small subsistence allowances has been agreed and I feel that they should apply to all justices of the peace and that the minority who live

within the three-mile distance of the place of their duties should be included. My Bill would put matters right.
We are being very parsimonious in this matter. It is not fair to ask a man who is prepared to do this extremely interesting and useful work to be a magistrate and, at the same time, deny his right even to a lunch if he happens to be away from home. It is true that everyone does not apply for this and that before a person it paid an allowance he must fill in a form and make application. Here I must say that I am not so sure that any of them should be called upon to afford the payment for lunch if they happen to be doing this extremely important work.
The country does not realise what magnificent work is being done. Of course, there are criticisms from time to time, but, considering the vast number of cases that magistrates deal with, justified criticisms are very small in number as, indeed, are all the criticisms.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Barnett Janner, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. William Shepherd, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Dunn, Sir Robert Cary, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Ennals, Mr. Marcus Lipton, Mr. William Hamling, and Mr. Raymond Fletcher.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES)

Sir Barnett Janner: Bill to remove the limit of three miles from residence in respect of subsistence allowances payable to magistrates under Section 8 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st May and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

DIVISION LISTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Maxwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House knows, we had today several Divisions on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill and a great many of our constituents would like to know, from their evening papers today or on the radio, how hon. Members voted. As matters stand at present, our constituents are unable to know this until the following day.
You may not be aware that, in another place yesterday, after the crucial Division on the War Damage Bill, the voting list was made available to the Press within 15 minutes of the result of the Division being announced. I ask you to consider whether the rule of your department could not be altered so that the Press is able to receive copies of our Division lists after they have been checked by your department and when, in the normal way, they are passed to HANSARD.
This would be of great value to the Press correspondents, who, because of our rules, cannot be sure how hon. Members have voted until the day after the Division. Under the present system, they have to peer down from the Press Gallery through the doors of the Chamber to try to recognise hon. Members as they come out of the Table Office. At that distance many errors of identification are possible and sometimes hon. Members have had cause to complain.
I suggest that, in a democratic assembly, it is right that our constituents should know as soon as possible how we have voted on any issue. I realise that you may not be able to rule on this at once, but I should be grateful if you will consider it and give us your Ruling later.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will recollect that, when the House sits after 10.30 p.m., Division lists are not published for 36 hours. In deference to the staff of the House and to others involved, I suggest that this point should be taken into account in your consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I must confess that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) astonishes me. The portrait of our constituents staying awake by night because they cannot see, until the morning paper, how we voted, strikes me as being slightly novel. I am not quite sure what practical possibilities are involved here, but I will look at the matter and, of course, I will bear in mind the convenience of our officers too, as I must.

Mr. Maxwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This rule has been in existence since the seventeenth century,

Mr. Speaker: Order. I promised to look at it in the twentieth century. I think that we should now get on with business.

CONTROL OF OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(PURCHASE NOTICES.)

(1) This section applies to any purchase notice served on or after 5th November 1964 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in respect of land within the metropolitan region, or served after the passing of this Act in respect of land which, at the date of service of the notice, is within an area to which Part I of this Act applies outside the metropolitan region, where either—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out on that land, or part of it, of development to which Part I of this Act applies was granted before the passing of this Act, but by virtue of section 3(5) of this Act that planning permission is for the time being deemed not to have effect, or
(b) the purpose for which that land, or part of it, is or was used at the date of service of the notice, or was last used before that date, is or was that of a building containing office premises.

(2) In relation to a purchase notice to which this section applies, the provisions of the Act of 1962 shall have effect as if, after subsection (4) of section 132 of that Act (action by Minister in relation to purchase notice), there were inserted the following subsection:—
(4A) Where the purchase notice is one to which section (Purchase notices) of the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act 1965 applies, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, determine not to confirm the notice without taking any such action as is mentioned in subsections (2) to (4) of this section",
and as if, in subsection (5) of that section, after the words "not to confirm the purchase notice" there were inserted the words "either in pursuance of subsection (4A) of this section or".

(3) Where in pursuance of subsection (4A) of the said section 132 (as modified by the last preceding subsection) the Minister has determined not to confirm a purchase notice to which this section applies, arid on a subsequent date the land to which that notice related ceases to be within an area to which Part I of this Act applies,—

(a) a further purchase notice may be served on or after that date in respect of the planning decision to which the previous notice related, and
(b) for the purposes of any regulations made under the Act of 1962 as to the time within which a purchase notice may be


served, the service of such a further purchase notice shall not be treated as out of time if it is served within the period which would be applicable in accordance with those regulations if the planning decision referred to in the preceding paragraph had been made on that subsequent date.

(4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) of this section, for what purpose any land is used, or was last used, as the case may be, no account shall be taken—

(a) of any use in accordance with planning permission granted for a limited period, or
(b) of any use in respect of which, before the date of service of the purchase notice, an enforcement notice had been served and had become effective, or
(c) of any use of land at a time when it is or was not covered by a building.—[Mr. Jay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.11 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I understand that it would also be for the convenience of the House if, with the new Clause, we discussed Amendment No. 56, in page 18, to leave out lines 8 to 13, and Amendment No. 52, in page 17, line 11, at the end to insert:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, subsection (3) of section (Purchase notices) of this Act shall not cease to have effect at the end of that period; and in relation to any land which, immediately before the end of that period, is land within an area to which this Part of this Act applies, any reference in that subsection to the date on which the land ceases to be within such an area shall be construed as a reference to the end of that period.
and Amendment No. 53, in page 17, line 12, to leave out from "the" to second "of" and to insert "preceding provisions".
This is a Bill about which the House has not disagreed in principle, and during the course of Committee stage the Government undertook to make certain Amendments to meet the views of hon. Members. We are here proposing an alteration which will close a loophole in the Bill which has come to light during our discussions since Second Reading.

Mr. Peter Emery: May we have this absolutely clear? I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should take with the new Clause Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 56. Did he not mean to say Amendments Nos. 46, 52 and 53?

Mr. Jay: I intended to say, and I hope that I did, Amendments Nos. 46, in page 14, line 38, to leave out "section 7(2)" and to insert
sections 7(2) and (Purchase notices)".
and 52 and 53.
I was saying that in our discussions it has come to light that there is an unintended loophole in the Bill as drafted relating to the possibility of compensation for an applicant for an office development permit who is refused a permit. It is almost a general principle of the Bill—because, this, as I explained earlier, is temporary legislation—that compensation should not be available for those who are refused office development permits. That is an issue which we have already discussed and decided and it does not arise on the new Clause or on the Amendments.
The issue which arises here is whether, even though, in general, there is to be no provision for compensation, a loophole might, nevertheless, exist in certain rather complicated circumstances by which applicants might claim compensation. The House will agree that, whatever view we might take of compensation in general, we do not want a situation in which compensation is denied to the great majority of applicants but might nevertheless be available in certain rather complicated circumstances. It is to avoid that position that we have introduced these, as I fully admit, somewhat complex proposals.
I am not sure how far it would be wise for me to explain too clearly, before the House has decided whether to accept the Clause, how this loophole could be used, but perhaps it is my duty to indicate roughly how the difficulty arises. There is no general provision for compensation when an O.D.P. is withheld or granted conditionally. Nevertheless, under Section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, an owner who is refused permission to develop his land and who claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use, can serve a notice on the local authority requiring it to buy his interest.
It is here that this rather esoteric difficulty arises. If the local planning authority is willing to buy the land, it may accept the purchase notice. If not, it passes it to the Minister who then has


to decide whether reasonably beneficial use has been lost. If he decides that it has not, he refuses to confirm the notice. If he decides that it has, he make take various courses which are open to him. In certain circumstances, if he does that, the owner may get compensation equal to the difference between the market value and the existing value of the land.
It was not the intention, of either side of the Committee, that this situation should arise and we have, therefore, provided that this unintended loophole should be closed. I should like to explain, however, that although the difficulty is met by the Amendments, we are not taking from the Minister in these circumstances the discretion conferred upon him to grant or remove the owner's right to have a purchase notice, based on the planning authority's decision, considered by the Minister in the usual way. That discretion remains with the Minister. The new Clause, therefore, confers only a discretionary right. It puts right a defect, which I frankly admit, in the original drafting of the Bill. Our town and country planning legislation is admittedly somewhat complicated and when it is altered some unintended effects may result.
We can all be glad that this difficulty has come to light. This seems to be the most satisfactory way in which to overcome it and to ensure that an effect is not produced which no part of the House wishes to be produced, while leaving reasonable discretion with the Minister. I hope that the new Clause and the Amendments will commend themselves to the House.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman said that compensation had already been debated and that it was generally agreed that compensation should not be available. It has not been fully debated, for the very good reason that the Money Resolution prevented its debate. I therefore see no reason why we should not comment on it, while we are still in order, on the new Clause.
I am not so sure that the new Clause really deals with compensation. By "compensation", I understand, in this context, the payment to the owner of property for some rights of which he is deprived. For example, if he had an established right to use his premises for

office purposes and, because of a refusal of an O.D.P., he could no longer use it for office purposes, there might be a question of compensation. The Bill precludes that. This is an entirely different position. This is a case in which, by the refusal of an O.D.P., the owner has been prevented from putting his property to any beneficial use.
If it were not for the Bill, Section 129 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, would give the owner the right to serve a purchase notice on the local authority, not merely to apply for compensation for some rights which he had lost, but to require the planning authority to purchase the property from him. An owner can serve that purchase notice only under very narrow conditions. He has to show that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, or that, by reason of conditions imposed under planning permission, it has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use.
This is his right as the law stands. The new Clause is intended to deprive him of that right. Let us be clear that what the Bill is doing is depriving the owner of property of his normal right, under town planning law, to oblige a town planning authority to purchase his property from him if it has been made incapable of reasonably beneficial use, and it may he absolutely useless to him. It is not sufficient for him to say that he cannot use it as well as he could. He has to show that it is of no use at all and can be put to no beneficial use at all. If an owner is placed in that position by the refusal of an office development permit, I should have thought it reasonable to allow him the existing right of serving a purchase notice and requiring the authority to purchase the property from him. I appreciate that it is the fault not of the planning authority, but of the President of the Board of Trade, that permission to develop has been refused. Nevertheless, his right should still apply of forcing the planning authority to purchase from him and to let the authority obtain the compensation from the Board of Trade.
The President of the Board of Trade said, in introducing the proposed new Clause, that we should not, by discriminating between owners who have suffered lay reason of the refusal of an office


development permit, allow some to get compensation by the back door and refuse it to others by the front door. That is fair enough. But I am not sure that the new Clause achieves that. As I read it, a favoured owner can still serve a purchase notice on the planning authority. The planning authority may be favourably disposed towards him and say, "We will buy", or it may say, "We will not buy".
There is, therefore, still the possibility of discrimination against certain owners. The owner can still appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government; he is not precluded from doing that. All that the new Clause says is that, if he appeals, the Minister need not go through the procedure which is normally required of carefully considering the appeal and holding certain inquiries.
But the new Clause only says that the Minister need not take those steps. As I read it, he may still reverse the local authority's decision. If it refuses the purchase notice and says that it will not buy, he can still say, "Nevertheless, I think that the local authority should have bought the property. I will confirm the order and force a purchase without taking any steps such as holding an inquiry".
I appreciate why the President of the Board of Trade has brought forward the new Clause. It seemed that if we left purchase notices exactly as they were it might be possible for a person who was stopped from developing by refusal of an office development permit to force the local authority to purchase the property. Frankly, I see no reason why that should not stand. Nor does the right hon. Gentleman, if I read the new Clause correctly, because he still leaves open the possibility of that happening. If he forbade it in every case, I could see the logic of his argument, but it could still happen. The new Clause merely says that the Minister can refuse without going through any formalities.
I cannot think that the new Clause is either fair or logical in its application. It may give rise to injustice between parties. It will certainly leave some owners with completely useless property and with no remedy against anyone for having made the property useless. But some owners, placed in exactly the same posi-

tion, may still receive favoured treatment from the local authority or from the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The new Clause is unfair. It will be extremely difficult to administer. I should have thought that by far the best thing to do was to leave the Bill as it stands.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: It is on the Report stage of a Bill that those who were not members of the Standing Committee have an opportunity to speak. I was interested in the Committee stage, but, unfortunately, I was serving on another Standing Committee at the time and was not able to serve on the Committee which considered the Bill. When I look round the Chamber and see only three back-bench Members supporting the Government Front Bench, I am led to the conclusion that those on the back benches opposite are just about as tired as some of the leading members of the Government. The Liberals are also conspicuous by their absence.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: How many are there on the Opposition benches?

Sir H. Harrison: Three times as many as there are on the Government back benches—and. after all, it is up to the Government to keep a quorum.
I have listened to the words of wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will pay particular attention to what he said. Listening to the discussions on the Bill for the first time since the Second Reading, I am not satisfied by what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. John Hall: The proposed new Clause is extremely interesting. It raises again the question of compensation on which a great deal was said, certainly by my hon. Friends, during the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has drawn attention to what appear to be flaws in the new Clause. It does not appear to do even what the Minister set out to do. Not only does it seem to allow people still to take advantage of the loophole which the Minister has found in the Bill—and that is perhaps a tribute to the very thorough scrutiny of the Bill by my hon. Friends in Committee which enabled the right hon.


Gentleman to discover this apparent flaw—but it seems to throw up certain other doubts.
One point which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby intended to raise, but did not, in fact, raise stems from subsection 1(b) which refers to
the purpose for which that land, or part of it, is or was used at the date of service of the notice, or was last used before that date, is or was that of a building containing office premises.
This seems to apply to the question of rights to an existing use of office buildings, the continuing right to the use of a building as office premises. What happens to the right to a continuing use of office premises, which is denied by the new Clause, if the premises are destroyed by fire? Does the refusal to allow a continuing use right to those office premises still fall, or would the person concerned be allowed to rebuild those offices? That is one point on which I should like the Minister's guidance.
I come to the general principle. I have already mentioned that this flaw has been found in the Bill, the main purpose of which is to remove the Government's liability to pay compensation. I gather that it is the Government's intention to stop this on the basis that if not everyone can have compensation no one shall have compensation. This is perhaps an understandable doctrine, but it would be unfortunate if it were applied throughout all human activity.
Not everyone can become a Minister of Her Majesty's Government. Because not everybody can become a Minister of the Crown, it does not follow that some people should not serve the Crown. If this were not so, we would not have the occupants of the Government Front Bench facing us. That principle can be carried too far.
4.30 p.m.
On Second Reading, we tried to develop the question of compensation. In my opening speech, I said:
What the Bill will certainly do is to remove the liability for compensation if planning permission is suspended or refused … I understand that the compensation could vary from about £1,000 to £3,500 per office place.
I went on to say:
Faced with figures of that size, I can understand the reason for the Bill. But that

does not excuse the Government from the duty of limiting inevitable injustices and hardships to the minimum. It makes it all the more important for there to be the right of appeal—something that the Bill seeks to deny. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will consider allowing compensation for expenditure or liabilities incurred after planning permission had been granted—for example. the preparation of plans and expenditure on surveyors' fees and the like.
I raise this question, because it seems to me that the new Clause throws open again for examination the whole question of compensation, because it endeavours to stop one perhaps small section of developers from obtaining compensation which they might otherwise have been able to obtain under the flaw which has been discovered in the Bill.
Later during Second Reading, when the Minister of State was replying, he made a point which we continued to pursue in Committee. He made the point in response to an interjection of mine. He said:
… we will consider cases of hardship".
I had intervened to say:
I am not quite clear whether the Minister is saying that the Government will look sympathetically at claims made in respect of expenditure incurred in drafting plans, surveyors' fees, and so on, or whether he is merely referring to the matter. Is he saying that the Government would be prepared to consider claims of that kind?
The Minister replied:
I am not making any promises about this. The whole question of compensation must stand as it has been presented in the Bill.
That, presumably, was before the Government thought about the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman continued:
I have said that we will consider cases of hardship, but at the moment we have no evidence about this. We want to see what the situation is. The Bill stands as it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1965, Vol. 705, cc. 749–50, 815.]
That seemed to be quite clear.
In Committee, however, my hon. Friends and I endeavoured to draft an Amendment which would cover the aspect of compensation to which I have referred—that is, the problem of reimbursing those who had suffered actual loss through expenses incurred in development which is rendered nugatory by the Bill—but we found ourselves up against the Money Resolution, as is so often the case. It was so tightly drawn, no doubt entirely by accident, that we


were not able to table an acceptable Amendment.
Nevertheless, we had a good deal of discussion, as a result of which we tried again to introduce new Clause No. 6 on Report. So that the House may be fully aware of what we had in mind, I should like to read it. It states as follows—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will help me. I have been trying to find out whether his remarks were in order. It will not be in order to discuss, by bringing them into this debate on new Clause No. 1, the Clauses which are not selected. The one that the hon. Member proposes to read is one which is not selected.

Mr. Hall: Of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was simply hoping to be able to give the House the benefit of the wording so that hon. Members could follow the arguments which I deployed thereafter. However, hon. Members will be able to read the new Clause by referring to new Clause 6 on the Notice Paper, where they will see another attempt to introduce the whole question of compensation for the special types of expenses to which I have referred.
We on this side believe that the Bill as it stands creates injustice and hardship. It has been said that in many cases development which is likely to be brought to a stop by the operation of the Bill will affect, in the main, large developers, whether companies or individuals, who can well bear the cost of any expense to which they are put without their being caused hardship. As was pointed out in Committee, however, it is not a question of whether a developer can afford to bear the cost. It is a question of ordinary, simple justice and whether it is right that he should be asked to bear that cost. We on this side believe that it is not right.
In Committee, I drew attention to this point in the debate on Clause 8. I pointed out that
Under existing town planning legislation anyone who is affected by planning considerations in certain circumstances has the right to ask for compensation under two main headings, one in respect of expenses and expenditure already incurred, and the other in

respect of loss of value for the loss of development rights."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th March, 1965; c. 540.]
As I pointed out at that time, although there is a case to be argued for granting compensation for the loss arising out of the denial of development rights, that is not the particular case that we were pressing. But we continue to press for the granting of compensation in respect of expenditure of the kind to which I have referred. The Minister said again, in Committee, that he would look at cases of hardship. We pressed the Minister of State on that matter and particularly to tell us how he would deal with cases of hardship. We had no reply.
Here we are being asked to accept a complicated provision which is not too easy to understand. It is one in which there appear to be flaws and, furthermore, one in which it would seem that despite the Government's attempts to block up what is described as a loophole, certain people may still be able to take advantage of it and, therefore, claim compensation. We are being asked to accept a proposal which draws attention to the fact that there may be intending developers who not only can claim compensation, presumably, for expenditure incurred in surveyors' and solicitors' fees, and so on, but may well be able to claim compensation for loss of development rights. And yet the Government intend to deny to a large number of proposing developers the simple and ordinary justice of allowing them to recover ordinary out-of-pocket expenditure.
It is asking rather much of the House to pass the new Clause without knowing far more than we know about the Government's intentions. Do the Government intend to do what they said they would do, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and look at cases of hardship? That might go part of the way towards meeting us. If the Government so intend, how do they propose to do it? It is rather late now to introduce a further Amendment into the Bill which would enable the Government to take action under legislation, but, presumably, they could do something administratively which might enable them to pay compensation in cases of hardship.
We ought to know whether, if we pass the Clause as it is and if no other action is taken on Report, it will be possible under the Bill in its present form for compensation to be paid in cases of hardship or other cases such as those which we have deployed. I suggest that that is not possible, but, at least, we ought to be told.
I must make it quite clear that we on this side of the House, although we would not necessarily oppose this new Clause, are very reluctant to accept it as it is without having some reassurances on these points I have been making. Permit me to stress again, so that there may be no doubt in anybody's mind what precisely it is we are trying to achieve, that it is this. We know that every time any person or company wishes to develop certain preliminary expenses have to be incurred. We know that the Bill can operate to stop that development, after planning permission has been given, and the developer has been authorised and permitted to go ahead with the development.
The Bill brings the development to a stop. Then the expenditure incurred up to that date is lost. It may be that upon refusal of permission to develop, part or whole of that expenditure might be reimbursed, but this depends, of course, on the length of time between the date on which the development was stopped, and the date on which permission to develop was given. We believe that some provision should be made to reimburse developers in the way I have described, with provision at the same time for part or whole of it to be repaid at such time as permission is given for the development to continue.
If the Government could reassure us on these points, that this is possible under the Bill as it stands, or will be so by the Bill as amended in another place, so that there will be provision for the kind of compensation we have in mind, and paid under the conditions I have described, I think that we could look on this new Clause with so Clause me sympathy, hut it may be difficult otherwise.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I think that I am the first Member to speak on the Bill now who was not a member of the Committee on the Bill.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am the second one, then. I put it to the Minister that it is

extremely difficult to follow the intricacies of a difficult Clause like this with only such a very short explanation as the Minister gave in proposing it. Many of us who have not had the opportunity of studying all the arguments in Committee will hope that whoever replies to this debate will go more closely through the various subsections of the new Clause. Coming new to it myself I am very much impressed by the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). Indeed, unless we are given by the Government a very good explanation of this new Clause, I hope that we shall press it to a Division.
As I understand it, Section 132 of the Town and Country Planning Act was originally in the 1947 Act as Section 19. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in any way. As I understand, it is that Section which gives the right to a person refused planning consent to go to the local authority to ask the local authority to purchase the land. I have always understood the law to be that, under the 1947 Act. Now we are told that people refused I.D.Ps have no such right as of right. They have the right only if the President of the Board of Trade, or the Minister, in his discretion gives the right, but I would have thought that people who are hurt, if I may use the expression, by this Bill, and refused I.D.Ps, have a far greater case to ask for compensation, for they are the people who, no doubt, incurred a great deal of expense. Expense is incurred, perhaps in professional fees, architects' expenses, and so on, and they are not cheap these days. Suddenly, as a result of this Bill, people are completely deprived of any compensation.
I hope that the Minister will take us rather more closely through the provisions of this new Clause, so that we who did not have the benefit of being able to sit in 15 meetings of the Standing Committee can follow the arguments in detail.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I congratulate those who were not members of the Standing Committee on joining in this discussion today. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) that I appreciate his difficulty in both standing and sitting in the same Committee at the same time. I can also


assure him that the reason why my hon. Friends who were on the Standing Committee are not here in great force today is that they are fully satisfied with the explanations which the Government gave during the course of the Committee's proceedings.
All of us are anxious to be fair and to do justice to anybody who may be affected by the Bill. I would say this in answer to the points which have been raised this afternoon, that the difficulty, of course, arises from the fact that where an applicant who has been refused an O.D.P., who was the owner of the land in question, wished to attempt to get compensation he could, of course, as the law now stands, make an application for some other development which he was fairly certain would be refused; and this would not really be a bona fide application to go forward with some development, but an application for development which he believed would be refused and which was wholly intended to provide with him with compensation. That is the difficulty which we are seeking to meet.
What the new Clause does in an attempt to meet this is as follows. Subsection (2) provides that when a purchase notice is served in respect of a site of the kind described in subsection (1), and if the Minister is satisfied that the site is incapable of reasonably beneficial use he may well decide not to confirm the notice. That, however, is only if he is satisfied that the site, as I say, is incapable of reasonably beneficial use. It does not take away from him his power to take any of the other courses of action open to him under the existing law, which would enable him to confirm the notice, or grant the permission for either the development applied for or some other development which seemed to him to be appropriate. If he does allow the purchase notice to go forward, then, of course, the applicant does receive—probably "compensation" is not the right term—payment for the land which is being purchased.
This seems to us to be a fair solution. What these Amendments do is to confer discretion on the Minister to judge whether the application is a bona fide one to carry out some alternative beneficial use of the land which is appropriate

in view of all the planning interests of the situation, or whether really it is merely an application for a use which the applicant knows is likely to be refused.

Mr. Graham Page: Before the President of the Board of Trade leaves that point, will he tell the House on what basis he proposes to exercise this discretion? He has told us that he may allow the purchase notice to stand and the owner thereby to sell his property to the local authority, that in other cases he will refuse to do that. Would he tell us how he will cast his favour?

Mr. Jay: In the first place, it would not be I. It would be the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who decides on these cases; it would be his proper statutory responsibility to decide whether an alternative use of the land would be desirable on town planning grounds, which are, after all, his responsibility. It is up to him to judge that, just as it would be for the President of the Board of Trade to decide whether, in the interests, as the Bill says, of the proper distribution of employment, it would be desirable for an office block to be erected on a site.
What I was emphasising was that this is a discretionary power which the new Clause and the Amendments confer upon the Minister.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman introduces the term bona fide—whether it is a bona fide application. This is, of course, a novel concept, so far as I am aware, in town planning law and procedure. The issue to he decided is a town planning issue, and that is a statutory requirement. No inquiry into the motive of the applicant is, so far as I know, relevant, permissible or customary. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that by a side wind he is introducing into the law, and, in particular, into the law relating to purchase notices, this new concept, and if it be so, how is he or his right hon. Friend going to institute his inquiry into bona fides and motives?

Mr. Jay: I should have thought that it would be for the Minister to reach a judgment on whether the purpose for which the application was made was in


accordance with his planning decisions and with those of the relevant planning authority. After all, it is impossible to carry out this legislation unless the Minister of Housing and Local Government makes judgments about what is the proper use of individual sites, and also, indeed, what is the best location of office development in this country. We cannot get away from conferring that sort of discretion on Ministers.
If a purchase notice which the Minister judges to be a proper one in accordance with the reasonable planning considerations is caught by the provisions of the new Clause, and if the Minister of Housing and Local Government is convinced that an owner is suffering real hardship, he can deal with the purchase notice in the way he would at present, and either confirm it or grant planning permission. Therefore, it seems to me that by this solution we ensure that no real hardship is created. We merely ensure that the existing provisions of the law are not used in a way which Parliament never intended, to enable compensation to be given for the refusal of an office development permit.
Whether or not every Member of the House is agreed on this particular solution, it is, nevertheless, the general decision which Parliament has reached on the Bill. It has been decided that there should not be a general provision for compensation wherever an O.D.P. is refused. In view of the way in which town planning legislation has grown up, it is inevitably a fairly complicated matter to ensure that one arbitrary provision for compensation is not given as it were by accident in this case. I think that we have found the best solution, and I think that what have been called bona fide applications are fully provided for in the way that I have described.

Mr. Peter Emery: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's reply, it is very important that we on this side of the House should make our position clear, especially as we have been urged by some hon. Members to divide on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman's reply does not clear up the position with regard to hardship. What he is really saying is that the Board of Trade intends to make hardship universal, that there will be no compensation at any level. The Board

of Trade intends to be equally hard and unpleasant to everybody. It is an unpleasant approach to the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will realise quite clearly that because of the "clever shenanigans" of the Financial Resolution, it has been impossible for Members on this side of the House to introduce any matter on compensation, or even on the reimbursement of ordinary individual expenses. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) went into this in some detail.
We are opposed to the whole manner in which compensation is being dealt with in the Bill. We believe that the Government are taking a backward-looking approach to this matter. We do not believe that it would be very costly to accept our proposal. We want to recompense only legitimate expenses. We do not wish to recompense for loss of future profits, but only for what has been incurred as expenses.
We obviously cannot divide the House on the new Clause, because it would be inconsistent if there were a small favoured section of society which got compensation, and a large section which did not. It is important that people should understand the logic behind not dividing on the Clause. To put it bluntly, the Government have got us in a cleft stick. They have been able, by procedural means, to stop us doing what we want to do. They realise that as an Opposition we are reasonable enough to want to improve the Bill, and will not necessarily oppose something, even though it is logically right to do so because we object to the principle of the Government's approach to the matter.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I express my pleasure in seeing before us once again the dauntless three, Horatius, Herminius and Spurius Lartius, whom we faced so often in Committee upstairs. I wish that they had the same support behind them as their three predecessors had. Even upstairs they had that magnificent team whom we knew so affectionately as the "silent six", who sat behind them. They are today without any form of utterance of any kind whatever. We realise the appalling strain on any Member of the Labour Party who has to remain quiet and is debarred from making a speech. They must have suffered agony after agony during the 15 days of the


Committee's work. After that brief tribute I come to the new Clause, as I am sure you would like me to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade has answered the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which was not that the Minister of Housing and Local Government could or could not refuse permission for any particular development, but that the question of bona fides did not enter into it at all, and so far in the law never has. This is introducing a new concept and, on the whole, an undesirable one. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give this a little further thought to see whether an Amendment can be made at a later stage.
Fortunately, we still have another place in which these second thoughts can occur. We shall probably not have it if the Government remain in power much longer, but it is there now, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make what use he can of our old Parliamentary procedure while he is still able to do so.
We have a strong point on this new breach in the law or this new interpretation of the law, but, further than that, it seems that the new Clause imposes an extra impediment in the way of development, even worse than the original Bill. We already have the town and country planning hurdle, which has to be overcome by anybody who wishes to develop in any way. The next hurdle is the O.D.P., and now this new Clause seems to be a deterrent in the way of anybody proceeding with any idea of expansion because it means that if he surmounts the other two hurdles he can still be turned down.

Mr. John M. Temple: My hon. Friend had the honour of serving on the Standing Committee. I do not know whether he heard my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) explain that there were 16 hurdles which the potential developer had to surmount. This is, therefore, the seventeenth, and not the third.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Wise: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I accept what he says, but I

cannot recall them all and I wish to devote a little thought to these two "Beecher's Brooks". The fact that they have overcome two hurdles only to find themselves faced with no possibility of compensation afterwards is likely to act as a deterrent, and may even be a check on office development. I know that the Government want to put a check on office development—that is the purpose of the Bill—but they do not want to put a check on all office development, however necessary it may be.
I can visualise persons who are faced with this problem inside the metropolitan region feeling that it is not worth while to try. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make use of the facilities which are still available to him to make adjustments in the Clause before it becomes part of an Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(FACTORY ESTATES.)

Mr. Wise: The Board of Trade shall have power to grant industrial development certificates to approved developers for the building of factory estates in advance of their occupiers being known, and such conditions may be imposed thereon to ensure that the factories are occupied in accordance with such orders as the Board of Trade may issue—[Mr. Peter Emery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Emery: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
It will be evident to everybody who understands the Bill that we now jump from office development permits to industrial development certificates. The new Clause offers probably our only opportunity, on Report, to deal specically with the provisions of Clause 16. It is reasonable that we should point out to the House that when the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs announced his intentions in the House and in the White Paper—Offices. A Statement by Her Majesty's Government—no information was given that there would be any interference with industrial development certificates or industrial development certificate procedure.
It has therefore come as a blow to some elements who were attempting to


modernise and build up the modernisation of industry, that the Government should take the powers specifically mentioned in Clause 16, as amended in Committee and, even before the Bill has become an Act, proceed to circulate through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the action that they intend to take once the Bill is on the Statute Book. It is now a matter of considerable notoriety that an undated letter was sent in February by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to local authorities in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Leicestershire, London, Middlesex, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Rutland, Shropshire, Peterborough, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwickshire and Worcestershire.
I read out that long list so that hon. Members should be under no misapprehension as to how extensive and all-pervading in the southern part of England are the regulations that the Government intend to bring in under the Bill in reducing the level of industrial development certificates.
The letter states quite clearly that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it is the intention of the Board of Trade to reduce from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. the additional extension which can be made for industrial development without an industrial development certificate. This matter is causing considerable concern in the more modern and up-to-date businesses which are at all times wishing to expand. It is not a good enough answer for the Government to say, "We will give them I.D.C.s anyway ". That is not the point. Up to now businesses have realised that they have the right to pursue this form of factory extension without an I.D.C. Now they realise that they have to go through the rigmarole and bureaucracy involved in obtaining an I.D.C.
The real object of the new Clause is to give the Government specific powers to deal with small firms and industrial development where we in Committee argued

for many days that there is a specific need. I have suggested that the Government do not understand the way in which small businesses and small industries expand and extend their operations. The view that it is the company itself which asks for an industrial development certificate to modernise its plant, or to move to a new plant, is not in accordance with the facts. What really happens is that a small business—usually under-capitalised but at all times wishing to expand—spends its money not on bricks and mortar but on salesmen, new machinery and all the expenses which go with the normal expansion of the business, and it cannot afford the capital cost of putting up a new plant.
How have these businesses been able to find new and modernised plant, or factories to move to in the past? They have looked round. They have found estates where small industrial factories have been built, and they have been able to rent such factories. I have made a small survey of a number of firms which have moved from back-street houses, garages and from dilapidated slum properties which are no longer of any use for living accommodation but where it is possible to install lathes or sewing machines or some sort of industrial equipment. A number of these pseudo factories —they are not really factories; they are a disgrace—have been released by firms moving into small factories usually of between 2,800 and 4,500 sq. ft. These, up to now, have been able to be built and have been convenient for a firm wishing to modernise and move into a factory with proper sanitary accommodation.
The position that the Bill makes clear is that the level of 5,000 sq. ft. may be reduced, and it is obvious from the letter to which I have referred that it is the Government's intention to reduce it to 1,000 sq. ft. in the areas which I have mentioned earlier.

Mr. Dan Jones: Does not the hon. Member think that it is not so much the Government's intention to limit the areas here but to extend them in other parts of the country where this development is badly needed? Will he address himself to that point? Further, I invite him to agree that aggrieved as industrialists may feel in the South, that feeling is not shared in the under-developed


areas of the North, for reasons which I hope will appeal to the hon. Member.

Mr. Emery: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for his interjections. I intended to use the most helpful interjection that he made in Committee to enforce my arguments later on. I will address myself to the point he has made. I ask the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me if I misinterpret him. He suggests that it is not the wish of the Government to be regressive or to limit. They wish to see this expansion go to other parts than to the counties which I have mentioned, to help the North-East or Scotland.

Mr. Dan Jones: Yes.

Mr. Emery: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that in theory that would seem a most logical argument, but in practice—this is our condemnation of the Board of Trade—it will not work.

Mr. Dan Jones: Why?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Why?" I will explain. The type of small firm which would occupy this sort of accommodation would employ fewer than 30 people, as a rule. The average is generally between 18 and 28. The entrepreneur, the "boss", is usually the bookkeeper and a part-time salesman. He is attempting to build up a business which has local connections. He employs local labour and often his employees are not represented by a trade union. That will come later. Often the employees comprise members of his family, and that is the only reason that the employees are willing to work in the sort of accommodation in which such a business is started.
It is madness to believe that if a business of that sort is being conducted in Hackney or the East End of London or in any part of the stipulated area—or in the North-East—the owner will move 200 or 300 miles to occupy new factory accommodation.

Mr. Dan Jones: Many have done—

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman suggests that many have done so—

Mr. Dan Jones: —With success.

Mr. Emery: —but I do not believe that is true.

Mr. Dan Jones: It is.

Mr. Emery: I should need a lot of proof. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to intervene in the discussion and give us proof of what he is saying. After we have completed the Committee stage discussions on this Bill the hon. Gentleman says that he has proofs that many firms have done this. I challenge that statement, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene and bring his information to the House, if he can. That may greatly affect the way in which we shall deal with this new Clause.
In my experience it is the case that the sort of firms to which I have referred never move more than 20 or 25 miles, usually no further than the range of local transport facilities, because such firms use local labour and "know how" and are not willing to risk losing that by going elsewhere. If the owner cannot get a new factory in the area where he is operating, he does not move. He attempts to expand amid the bad, insanitary and unreasonable factory conditions which he is occupying.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, even if it is in the interest of the nation, such a person should not move but should still be allowed to remain in a slum?

Mr. Emery: My argument is that it is in the interests of the nation that he should be made efficient and be allowed to expand. The Board of Trade should realise that many of the big exporting companies—B.M.C. is the best example—started in small back rooms or garages. If we limit that sort of operation we are limiting much of the contribution which small firms can make.

Mr. Dan Jones: That is happening in the North today.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman has gone back to the view that if we accept the Motion we shall hurt the North-East or Scotland. This is not a matter of party politics. On what we have attempted to do in the North-East our record is clear. I believe it is true that not one in a hundred of the firms which might be affected would be persuaded at any time to move further than 20 or 25 miles from the area where it now operates.
Many of these firms are classification 3, to which we referred during the Committee stage discussions, which are satellite industries. They include such things as laundries, bakeries and vehicle repair firms. These people cannot move, because the whole business is connected with the area where it is situated. It is nonsense to try to use such an argument in this case.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I am not entirely with my hon. Friend on this point. Is he proposing to allow these businesses to expand in the South? Will not that undoubtedly bring people down from Scotland and the North, which surely is the last thing we wish to do?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Temple: My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) mentioned in the earlier part of his speech—I did not correct him then—that this is applicable to the South. It is applicable to the North-East and to a wide portion of the Midlands as well, and my hon. Friend will know that.

Mr. Emery: The letter to which I referred is applicable to the South, and in Wales—

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): And the Midlands.

Mr. Emery: Shropshire, Derbyshire, and to the counties which I read out.
The powers under the Bill allow this to be spread anywhere in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will realise from Amendments on the Notice Paper that we are attempting to ensure that certain parts, whether in the development districts or in Scotland or the North, should be excluded. It is correct that these powers would be inferred and would possibly apply in Scotland as anywhere else. I do not want to avoid the other point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) about the possibility of attracting employment. There was a loud "Hear, hear" from the Government Front Bench to that. Of course there is always the fear that some people will leave Scotland to come to the South, or will leave York to come to London, or leave Wales to come to the conurbation round the

Metropolis. Anyone who does not accept that as true as not facing facts. It is the situation which exists now and which I think will exist in 50 years' time.

Mr. Dan Jones: It is a situation that we ought to control.

Mr. Emery: The trouble will not be cured by dealing with small factories and the expansion of satellite industries. It is necessary to provide major schemes, and it is by the provision of large factories that we shall be able to attract industry to the North-East and to Scotland.
I wish to deal specifically with this new Clause. It should be clearly realised that our objections here were made during the Committee stage discussions and there have been responses from the Government. They accepted the importance of this type of industrial development and, indeed, redevelopment, but rejected our Amendments in Committee. The President of the Board of Trade said:
The administration of I.D.Cs has always been very flexible and they have been liberally granted for local industries where … they cannot be located at any distance from or outside the area. and where there is an undoubted need for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee D, 30th March. 1965; c. 695.]
Here is the Board of Trade admitting the very point that I made just now to my hon. Friend. It admits that there are industries which it is essential for us to have in the South and situated near their original place of occupation.
The President of the Board of Trade went on to say that he wished to steer industry, particularly light industry, to Ludlow, Knighton, or even Montgomeryshire. He considered that it is necessary to have some control of the kind that the 1,000 sq. ft. I.D.C. would allow. He said:
This is precisely the purpose for which we should hope to use ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th March, 1965; c. 704.]
the present requirements.
I do not believe that the assurances which were given by the President of the Board of Trade and, later, the Minister of State mean very much. The purpose of the control is to prevent industry from bettering itself in its present location and, by withholding an


I.D.C., to steer industry into some other location. The applicant has been told that his request will be sympathetically and flexibly considered, but, honestly, this is only an assurance and has nothing to do with the Bill itself.
Planning authorities have been able to use powers, given to them under the 1947 Act, to ensure that where property such as I have referred to has in the past been released, it will not again be misused if a planning application has been granted for the type of extension to which I am referring. Therefore, there are already specific powers to stop the misuse of vacated property which might apply in the instances to which I have referred. Also, it is important to realise that the Minister of State gave an assurance that it has been the Board of Trade's policy to give very favourable consideration to factories which are caught in the situation which I have described. How much value does he place on such an assurance? I am not attempting in any way to make this a party political point. I am trying to put the position of a firm which wants to expand; it will look at the law. If the Minister of State feels that he can give that most adequate assurance, why cannot it be written into the Bill?
I believe that in reply to this Clause the Minister of State will say, "This is unnecessary. We do not need it. We can do this now." That may or may not be true. It is true that after the Bill becomes an Act the Board of Trade can grant every I.D.C. or O.D.P. asked for, but it is evident that it will not do that. Therefore, industry must realise that there will be some deviations about I.D.C.s.
It seems to me that it has not been the policy of the Board to grant I.D.Cs. freely by the method which I have suggested, because it has never been necessary. Because the regulations did not exist, it was not necessary. So it is not fair to say "We have always given I.D.Cs. freely in the past." The Board of Trade has given them at other levels and in response to other types of application. It has never done this in respect of I.D.Cs. for development below 5,000 sq. ft., because that was not necessary. Therefore, it is not a fair argument to say, "We

have granted them freely and will continue to do so". We have here a new criterion put into the law, and we are particularly concerned about it. Experience has too frequently shown that assurances given in the House, however much they were meant at the time—I have no doubt that the Minister means exactly what he says at the moment—have no legal binding force. Indeed, the Minister must realise that if the situation changed he could abide by the letter of the law and the manner in which the law has been made clear.
During the Committee stage the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) said something with which my hon. Friends and I were delighted to agree, that men in business should be able clearly to see the end of the road when they enter upon any project. That is very fair. All of us would agree with him. But we believe that when a man starts a business project he ought to have certain assurances given to him by the law and that the law should allow him to see to the end of the road whenever possible. There may be problems and risks, but he should be able to judge fairly how the law stands. Suddenly in the middle of the road—for some it will be very near the beginning of the road—the Bill sets up a new obstacle. That is wrong in this instance. There are certain people who may be affected by the Bill as it stands, and the new Clause is trying, in another sense, to deal with them. They may already have made an investment for erecting the type of factories which the new Clause would allow. They have been able quite clearly to see the risks involved and the increased costs that they might have to face. Having seen to the end of the road, they have made their decision. Then the Government say, "No. You now need an entirely different permission". It means that the Government are altering the rules of the game while those persons are playing the game.
We believe this to be wrong. It was specifically towards that end that one of my hon. Friends tried to deal with matters of compensation to cover the expenses of that type of man. The new Clause would allow, in a manner which has not been made evidence before, that person to be covered when dealing with industrial development certificates for


the building of small estates. We like the simile of the hon. Member for Burnley, and we hope that he will support us in pressing this matter on the Government.
The main purpose of the new Clause is to make clear that the small types of business or industry which go into the type of development dealt with under the limit of 5,000 sq. ft. do not themselves apply for I.D.C.s. They do not spend their own money on development permission, and they have to rent a factory if they are to move. It is to provide for the modernisation of those industries that we most strongly urge the Government to accept the new Clause.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to the new Clause before the House? The debates so far, since I came into the Chair today, have been remarkably wide. Mr. Costain.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) in the new Clause, but first of all I ought to read the new Clause to hon. Members opposite. I ought also to apologise to my hon. Friends that we are putting forward such a Socialist Clause. I am certain that hon. Members opposite have not read it and have not realised that it is the biggest piece of Socialist amending legislation which I hope the Conservatives ever put forward. It puts complete power in the President of the Board of Trade. It is amazing that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) should in any way oppose it.

Mr. Darling: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) was not quarrelling with the new Clause. He was quarrelling with the very curious argument which the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) adduced in support of it, which had nothine to do with the new Clause.

Mr. Costain: I take it from those helpful remarks that the Minister will accept the new Clause.
We have put it forward from this side of the House because those hon. Members who were in the Committee realised what a narrow bit of Socialist legislation the Bill is. There must be some enter-

prise introduced into the Bill to make it practicable. Whenever I speak in the Chamber I try to describe my own practical experience of matters to the benefit of the House, and I can claim a good deal of experience in building factories. I want to draw the Minister's attention to what happened in the new towns which were created by Socialist Governments. They did not get off well at the start because they took too narrow a view of the matter. But they got off to a success when the Conservative Party came into power and introduced the private enterprise element which we suggest in the Clause.
I recently went to Harlow New Town, with which I have some connection, on a tour of the factories to find out how they had evolved. At one time they could not get factories going there, but suddenly there was a spurt of factories. If the Minister looks up his records of the time when my right hon. Friends were in power at the Board of Trade in 1951 he will find that in order to get these new towns going they agreed to the building of advance factories. Previously there had been the greatest difficulty in getting factories to move from London to a new town.
Of necessity industrialists are very cautious about moving from one area to another, and when they realise that it will take from two to three years from the time they fill in the first form to the time the furniture van arrives to move the office furniture, there are very many excuses why they should not move. There is always some member of the board who says, "Why should we move? It will take too long."
But immediately Harlow New Town began building these advance factories the light began to dawn. Those members of boards which were debating whether to move or not suddenly realised that because the advance factories had been built they would be able to move at very short notice. They were able to persuade their colleagues on the board that they ought to move. This just tipped the balance in favour of the new factories.
We ask in the new Clause that the President of the Board of Trade should
have power to grant industrial development certificates to approved developers


—developers approved by the Board of Trade. This is Socialism at its best. It gives no power to anyone but the President of the Board of Trade. It does not give the President of the Board of Trade any special right to build a factory, but it gives him the right to put some private enterprise into his Department. Having given that permission, he is offered a further safeguard in the Clause, so that he has no excuse for not accepting it; he can impose such conditions as to ensure that these
factories are occupied in accordance with such orders as the Board of Trade may issue.
No more water-tight measure has ever been produced from this side of the House. Why cannot the Minister immediately say, "We are surprised that you introduced the new Clause and we most certainly accept it"?

Mr. Darling: I was waiting for an hon. Member apposite to address himself to the Clause, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has done—and I was glad that he did so, because I say to him right away that this is a Socialist Clause. I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) already has doubts about supporting it.
If the Board of Trade did not possess the powers set out in the new Clause, we should require a new Clause of this kind in order that the Board of Trade could do the job which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe has been describing. In fact, the Board of Trade already has powers to grant I.D.C.s for the building of factory estates, even though the occupiers of the factories may not be known when the I.D.C. is issued. The Board already has these powers, and in certain parts of the country they have been exercised. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) wishes me to spell this out in great detail, but the powers are there.

Mr. Brewis: Are they exercisable in the development districts?

Mr. Darling: Yes. They could be exercised and no doubt have been exercised. For instance, if a local authority went ahead with a factory estate of some kind and there arose the kind of circumstances which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe had in mind, it

would obviously be desirable that the factory estates should be built in this way and the industrial development certificates given. The advantage of the development district lies in the loans, grants and other inducements which would arise.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the hon. Member saying that if a local authority, as part of the redevelopment of an area, for example slum clearance, wanted to re-establish a non-conforming industrial user, when the Bill became an Act it would not prevent such a local authority from being able to re-establish such a non-conforming industrial user or must it go through all the rigmarole of the Bill?

Mr. Darling: Planning permission and the I.D.C. would have to go together. This goes on all over the country, except in Northern Ireland. It might be helpful if I read the proposed new Clause. It states:
The Board of Trade shall have power to grant industrial development certificates to approved developers for the building of factory estates in advance of their occupiers being known, and such conditions may be imposed thereon to ensure that the factories are occupied in accordance with such orders as the Board of Trade may issue.
Those powers are already in the hands of the Board of Trade. There is, therefore, no need to re-enact them in the Bill. They can be used in circumstances where it is appropriate to develop estates of this kind and will be so used.
The hon. Member for Reading drew attention to the circular which was sent out explaining the 1,000 sq. ft. limit which will be applied in the Midlands and the South. I will quote, since we considered this in Committee, the statements which were made on Second Reading, because I assure hon. Members that there was no dubiety on this issue. This was not suddenly sprung on the Committee. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
Industrial estates have been built up out of these small units"—
that is, under 5,000 sq. ft.
giving in total employment for several hundreds of people. This may be one reason why former Presidents of the Board of Trade repeatedly protested the resolute toughness with which they were applying the I.D.C. control, while it became obvious to the naked eye, and from the statistics, that the situation was getting worse and worse.


My right hon. Friend went on:
We propose, therefore, when the Bill becomes law, to introduce an order providing that, in the London, South-East, Eastern and Midland regions of the Board of Trade, the limit should be set at 1,000 sq. ft., but that it should be left at 5,000 sq. ft. in the rest of the country.
My right hon. Friend went on to explain why, and one of the reasons he gave was mentioned by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). We want to know the extent to which we have this congestion in the Midlands and South-East, when only about 10 per cent. of the industrial development is going through with I.D.Cs. Planning permission is given for the rest, and obviously the rest must be under 5,000 sq. ft. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is writing to local authorities "—
that was the letter to which the hon. Member for Reading referred—
in the areas I have mentioned drawing their attention to the Bill's provisions and to the Government's intentions and asking them to consider applications for planning permissions for new building with special care from now on, until the Order is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 742–3.]
This was, therefore, not a circular that was suddenly sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, or something different or novel, because the Ministry is constantly sending out circulars giving advice to local authorities. It sent out a circular in 1962 dealing with this problem and, in that circular, the Ministry explained that the Board of Trade had the same kind of power proposed in the new Clause.
I repeat the assurance which has been given about the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading; of slum clearance, central developments in towns and the kind of growth and development which affects the small factory. With my usual lucidity and clarity, if I may say so, I gave that assurance in Committee, when I said:
It has been the Board of Trade's policy to give very favourable consideration to factories of more than 5,000 sq. ft. which are caught in the situation … described. Obviously, we would not treat factories of less than 5,000 sq. ft. with any less sympathy.

5.45 p.m.
Having said that, the hon. Member for Reading said, after thanking me for having given that assurance:
It will probably meet the case I have advanced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th March, 1965; c. 706.]
It is true that that assurance, which I now repeat, will meet the case which he advanced. We need this 1,000 sq. ft. provision for the reasons I have given. However, the 1,000 sq. ft. provision has nothing to do, except indirectly, with the new Clause. As I said, the Clause is clearly a Socialistic one, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe rightly said. If we did not have this power we would certainly be asking for it for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Flythe. Because we have such power the new Clause is unnecessary.

Mr. John Hall: It might help hon. Members to make up their minds about the new Clause if the Minister would quote the Statute under which this power is given.

Mr. Darling: It is contained in the various Distribution of Industry Acts. If the hon. Gentleman will look them up he will find them. It is rather a negative arrangement, for there is nothing in the Statute which says that the Board of Trade cannot issue an I.D.C. if the occupiers are not known. It refers to the developer who will need an I.D.C. in the circumstances we have been discussing. There is nothing in the legislation which prevents the Board of Trade from issuing a certificate in that situation and, therefore, we have power to issue certificates in the manner sought by the new Clause. That power has been exercised and can continue to be exercised. Thus, the new Clause is not needed.

Mr. Wise: The Minister of State seems to have correctly read my views about the new Clause. I congratulate him on his perspicacity. I will not reply in detail to the pure spirit of 1984 we got from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones)—because he went a little too far in general principles in his intervention.
I gather that the Minister will advise my hon. Friends either to reject or to withdraw the new Clause on the grounds


that it is unnecessary. I suggest that it is not only unnecessary but revolting because it is designed to extend a power that is wholly improper in relation to the manner in which the Board of Trade should give directions—not only the giving of directions but almost the invention of industries for particular areas.
Hitherto, in all cases, the Board of Trade has been able to interfere if the area involved was of more than 5,000 sq. ft. We are now faced with a situation in which the Government are proposing to reduce that area to 1,000 sq. ft. In other words, one will not be able to build even a tool-shed without the quiet acquiescence of the Board of Trade. Anybody who wants to put up a factory on a new estate may find himself having to go cap in hand to request permission to add a tool-shed, if it is over 1,000 sq. ft., in which to keep a lathe and a band saw.
There are large numbers of small concerns which cannot be directed arbitrarily. Hitherto, they have had a fair chance of setting up in an area which is attractive to them because, for instance, it is a busy area. Consider the case of a man who wishes to set up a small printing works. He is more likely to want to do that in a small Midlands town, where there will probably be plenty of business for him, rather than in a partly derelict area where he will get less business and which probably already has sufficient printers to do the work that is required. If the new Clause became part of this already rather tiresome enactment, such a man would be largely debarred from setting up business in the way he wishes. He would find, first of all, that the Board of Trade would have decided whether or not it liked printing works, and also whether or not the area was a fit one in which to do anything like that.
I cannot see that this is anything but—not Socialism—

Mr. Darling: Neo-Communism?

Mr. Wise: Beyond that. I do not think that even Stalin ever thought of this—

Mr. John Hall: Is not my hon. Friend's indignation wrongly addressed? Should it not be addressed to existing legislation? If we understand the Minister correctly,

the power asked for in the new Clause already exists, so that the Board of Trade can do precisely what it is now being asked to do.

Mr. Wise: I rather fear that most legislation dealing with development districts came from our side of the House, and I regard it as revolting from whichever side it may come. But as far as I can see, the Board of Trade at present has this power only in respect of areas of more than 5,000 sq. ft. It is only now that we come down to the smallest area in which one could swing a cat—not that I have ever swung a cat: I cannot say precisely what number of square feet are required for that purpose.
I trust that this new Clause will be allowed to perish peacefully, without too much fuss. It is dangerous to extend the Board of Trade's present powers. I am still convinced that in most cases industry would get on much better without the Board of Trade having these powers. I am very reluctant to allow any further interference with what is very necessary in many areas for various ancillary trades.
There is an example in addition to that I gave of the printing works. A number of very small firms carrying on business in very small workshops make vitally important precision goods for bigger firms. When one of the bigger firms comes along it is no good saying that such small concerns should go to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to make their precision instruments. They want to make their precision instruments on top of their market. As I said more than once in the Standing Committee, the tendency of industry is to go where communication costs are lowest, and that applies to small as well as to big firms. I think that it would be intolerable to allow the Board of Trade to prevent a very large number of these firms from taking this perfectly sound economic step.

Sir H. Harrison: I was carried away by the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), and I did not immediately thereafter try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I wanted to see how the debate developed.
I am now told from my own back benches that this new Clause is the most extraordinary piece of Socialism there could be, but I think that my hon. Friend


moved its Second Reading because he foresees that some such powers may be necessary as small businesses might not, under the Bill, be able to extend on their present sites with the limit reduced from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. An area of 1,000 sq. ft. may sound big, but it is only 17 yds. by 6 yds.
Much has been said to the effect that the whole of the South-East is very crowded. In the Eye division I have over 180 parishes, and although in this last year we have had a migrant population for the building of the atomic power station at Sizewell, my electorate has been going down every year, and we have been worried about where some of our boys and girls go. I thought that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) disagreed, but I see that he now nods.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: I did not question the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; I merely said that I could well understand the reasons for it.

Sir H. Harrison: In some ways we are rather like other parts of the country which have been referred to—Scotland, and the rest—because we have been losing our young people, which is bad for the corporate life of our villages. Nevertheless, during the last five or six years I have seen 20 or 30 of our more enterprising young men start such businesses as agricultural engineering, agricultural contracting, and so on. There has been an increase in the size of the local village garage, whose proprietor now wants a showroom in which to display his cars and lorries for sale. These young men have also gone into business as feedingstuffs and corn merchants, maltsters, the manufacture and sale of wrought iron work, drainage equipment, and other things.
They start in small premises in their villages, and have an expanding labour force. These enterprising young men are in some ways already threatened by the Budget, but is the Bill part of the Socialist prejudice against such private enterprise? If, at present, they have 2,000 sq. ft. of factory space and want in future to add another 2,000 ft., is it probable that they will face the threat of not getting permission because Suffolk

is supposed to be part of the overpopulated part of the South-East? In these villages, businesses like this should have the right to develop to meet the local needs of the villagers in a more mechanical age.
It is that aspect that worries me in what the Minister has said, and I should like to be reassured that businesses in villages in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire would be able to get permission to expand by another 2,000 or 3,000 sq. ft., as they have been able to do in the past.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: One of the pleasant things about this friendly debate is that the issues raised by the new Clause clearly cut across party differences, and hon. Members are able to address their arguments to its merits in relation to the problems as they affect their own constituencies. If I find myself taking a view different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), it is because I represent, in Wanstead and Woodford, a constituency in the Greater London area which has been affected by the increasing congestion of the South-East. For that reason I support, and made it clear at the time of the election that I supported, a stronger regional policy. I am therefore in broad sympathy with the general objectives of this Bill.
In these matters, I do not even begin to have the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has, and I did not have the honour to serve on the Standing Committee. I have, however, had some experience in industry of the problem of obtaining industrial development certificates in different parts of the country, and I can, therefore, speak with some limited knowledge of the field we are considering.
It was a little disingenuous of the Minister of State, if he does not mind my saying so, to say that this new Clause has nothing to do with Clause 16, and that earlier speakers in the debate, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) in his powerful speech, had somehow been using the new Clause as a peg on which to hang irrelevant arguments. That is not so. The new Clause must be looked at against the background of the changes


which it is intended to introduce as a result of the main Clause. There is, notably, the change which reduces the figure from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. above which an industrial development certificate for a new factory will have to be applied for.
6.0 p.m.
My experience of this legislation and some of the remarks made by my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite suggest that the industrial development certificate procedure has been of relatively limited effectiveness in attaining the purpose at which it is aimed. The reason for this is not difficult to see. When one applies for a certificate one of the pieces of information which has to be filled in on the form is the number of employees on the site and the number of additional employees who will be found working there after the development is completed. In many cases it is not difficult to say that there will be no increase in employment because all one is trying to do is to remove congestion which exists as a result of the increased activity arising since the last expansion.
Having got the industrial development certificate one comes along some years later and asks the Board of Trade for another certificate and states that there will be no increase in employment. The representative of the Board of Trade finds that the employment has been increased by, say, 500 people, an increase for which no certificate was needed but which arose because of the expansion of the factory. This is the background against which we are considering the new Clause. Reducing the level from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. will intensify the difficulty. It may be harder to do the development in dollops of 5,000 sq. ft. but easier in dollops of 1,000 sq. ft. This general change may militate against the effectiveness of the general policy which the Bill is intended to follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading quoted from the circular letter sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I confess that I was tempted to improve on Bernard Shaw in the words he put into the mouth of Eliza Doolittle "In Hampshire, Herefordshire and Hertfordshire hindustrial hinnovation will 'ardly hever 'appen".

It will become more difficult for small businesses to establish themselves in new factories which often alone can provide the stimulus to pull themselves into the second half of the twentieth century.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), who has now left the Chamber, objected to the arguments adduced in favour of the Clause on the ground that the intention would be frustrated in that industries would not be persuaded to move to various parts of the country where we want to see them established. That was based on a total misconception of how these things work. The point was made from this side of the House that very small firms with whom this Amendment is concerned can hardly ever be induced to move on their own to sites hundreds of miles away. To attempt to promote a regional policy by directing industry at that sort of level—firms which employ 18 to 28 people—would be flying in the face of logic.
Fortunately, this is not the only method by which a regional policy can be pursued. The most effective course is not by means of using the "stick" because in a free country and a basically free economy the stick is not the most satisfactory way if implementing policy. The most effective way is by use of the "carrot". There is no doubt, and I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that it has been the free depreciation offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his Budget, two years ago—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. The debate is getting very broad again. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the new Clause.

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the argument is that the new Clause is necessary to make sure that modernisation can take place within a pattern of industry where regional considerations have but a limited application.
I was about to argue—and I apologise if I was out of order—that regional objectives can be more effectively attained by other means. If I may, I wish to make one suggestion in this connection which has a relation to the small firms and the way in which we want them to move. That is to ensure that the basic large firms, which are often capital-intensive firms, should be given maximum


incentives to establish themselves in areas of high unemployment.
It is a criticism of the way in which the policy is being implemented that a test of labour intensiveness is applied, that is, whether one can establish that a firm will employ enough labour, but these big firms are not given an incentive. This is a great mistake because these are the firms which would attract small satellite firms to settle with them in the development districts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I make no comment on the merit of the hon. Member's arguments, but he must address himself to the new Clause and take note of what the Chair says.

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise if I was guilty of failing to take note of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I was under the impression that my argument was related to the promoting of modernisation of the small firms within areas of high economic pressure—the phrase used in the publication of the Town and Country Planning Association—by allowing the establishment of small factory sites without having to go to all the rigmarole of the I.D.C. procedure, and that this was a necessary corollary of the effective policy of trying to persuade these firms to move to development districts by linking with big, capital-intensive, basic firms which provide the raw materials, a number of small firms. The impact of the Budget last week will reduce the effectiveness of that inducement.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not pursue that, particularly in view of the Rulings you have given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I suggest that the attempt to control, to try to promote, regional development and particularly to try to promote opposition to the drift to the South-East and persuade firms to go north is wrong in relation to these small firms. We ought to give every encouragement to them to modernise and innovate and bring themselves up to date by establishing the sort of small factory estate—flatted factories and things of that sort—which are coming more and more into use without having to go through the rigmarole of the industrial development certificate procedure.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: The House will recollect that I put a question to the Minister of State. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman's answer was altogether satisfactory. During the last few minutes I have had the opportunity of consulting some of my hon. Friends, who have come to the same conclusion. My question may have been so phrased that it was not as clear as it might have been. This may have led the hon. Gentleman to give an answer which was not as clear as he would like it to have been. I shall spend a few minutes trying to express more clearly what is in my mind, because it is a genuine point. I know that the Minister of State will be indulgent with me, because he knows that I did not have the honour, enjoyed by himself and other hon. Members, of being a member of the Standing Committee. Therefore, I am not as familiar with the Bill as some hon. Members on both sides are.
The point upon which I seek clarification is this. The Clause, if the House were disposed to agree to it, might help me in some respects. I ask hon. Members to think of an area which has within its boundaries industrial companies engaged in light industry, which is regarded by the planning authority as a non-conforming industrial user. To deal with the problem, many local authorities try to set up small trading estates. When the time comes to clear the area, they tell the companies affected, "We have to pull you down. You must move away. We have the opportunity of providing space close to the area which has been prepared in advance".
Sometimes this offer is taken advantage of by a company if it falls into the category of a non-conforming industrial user. On other occasions the company decides not to take advantage of the offer, but moves further afield. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) made clear to the House, in his persuasive and eloquent speech, many companies are of such a size that they cannot move far away; they are part of the local industrial pattern.
If the Clause is not accepted, to what extent will such companies and local authorities have to go through the procedure laid down in the Bill, particularly in the light of Clause 16? In my constituency there is a local authority which


is concerned about this aspect of the Bill, because it has a number of nonconforming industrial users and wants to re-establish them within the area. The hon. Gentleman would help that local authority and, no doubt, other local authorities in areas affected by the Bill if he explained to the House precisely how the Bill would operate in such a situation.

Mr. Darling: An industrial development certificate will be required. The hypothetical development described by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) would be involved in the planning arrangements of the local authority—slum clearance, and all the rest of it. But the erection of the new factory that the displaced firm would go into would require an I.D.C. It is part of the planning procedure. This is not something new. This has gone on for a long time.
I can only repeat the assurance which I gave in Standing Committee, and which was accepted by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), that it has been the Board of Trade's policy to give very favourable consideration to applications for I.D.C.s in these circumstances. I went on to say—this, too, was accepted —as to the new limit of 1,000 sq. ft. that the favourable consideration which has been given in the past to the larger factories will also be given to applications where the factory is less than 5,000 sq. ft. but more than 1,000 sq. ft.
The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) spoke of local factories which, obviously, could not be put anywhere else. We have taken note of the very interesting observations of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to reply to them in detail. He made a number of interesting points which I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing in future.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friends for the contributions they have made, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who was able, with logic, to reinforce some of my argu-

ments. The Minister of State has said that the powers set out in the new Clause exist already. This pleases me, because we wanted to ensure that this was the case. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) specifically asked where these powers were, it had to be pointed out that, even when replying to a new Clause, with all the power of hidden minions to provide him with a brief, the Minister of State was not absolutely certain where the powers existed. I am not trying to score off the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Darling: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciated that I gave him the correct reply. There is nothing to prevent the Board of Trade exercising these powers in any of the legislation.

Mr. Emery: This is excellent. I repeat that I am not trying to score off the hon. Gentleman. He was not able to tell the House specifically where these powers existed. Again, without attempting to score off him, may I tell him that some of the leading people concerned with this sort of problem, with this sort of legislation, and with this sort of development, are not clear about it. They approached us to see what we could do.
So that we can continue in the spirit which prevailed in Committee, which was a spirit of amiability and pleasantry, I appeal to the Ministry to treat the new Clause as consolidating legislation. We would be bringing this all together and merely stating the position. It may, in fact, exist somewhere else, but the people concerned in these matters will look at the Bill when enacted, because this will be the most modern Measure. I shall not ask my hon. Friends to divide the House. But having said that, would not the hon. Gentleman be just as magnanimous and say that he could quite easily accept the Clause? The Clause does no more than state what the hon. Gentleman asserts is the present position. If the matter were clearly stated in this Measure, it would be of considerable help to those who are in doubt.

Mr. Darling: I cannot accept the Clause. It is not needed. I will state the reason. The Clause ends in this way:
and such conditions may be imposed thereon to ensure that the factories are occupied in accordance with such orders as the Board of Trade may issue.


We do not want to lay down any conditions or issue any orders. The system works extremely well as it is. The powers, such as they are, that the Board of Trade has to do what the hon. Gentleman wants ought not to be associated with conditions which are not spelled out in the Bill.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry to rise again, but we are now getting a little clearer. What the Minister has told us is not quite the case, for it is not exactly as the Clause spells it out. These are not the powers that exist. He does not want to accept the point which we are stressing, namely,
… in accordance with such orders as the Board of Trade may issue.
We want to ensure that the Board of Trade should be able to stipulate who should go into these factories. This is what happens at the moment with local authorities. It is done in Middlesex, Surrey, and in a number of other local authority areas to ensure that these factories are occupied by the people for whom they are really intended. We are trying to help the Minister, not to limit him. I should have thought that, having said that, he could still accept this Clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.—(DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.)

Mr. Temple: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 17, after "metropolitan", to insert "office".

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I think that it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, after "metropolitan", to insert "office", and Amendment No. 65, in page 2, line 1, at the end to insert "office".

Mr. Temple: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that will be convenient.
I remind the House that at this stage we are coming back to Part I of the Bill, which deals specifically with office development permits. It would be pleasant, in moving an Amendment of this nature, to be able to say that this matter had had a fairly full ventilation in Standing Committee. In fact, that was the case, but there are a good many Members on both sides of the House

today who did not serve on that Standing Committee.
This is a comparatively modest, though important, Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to make the terminology of "the metropolitan region" read "the metropolitan office region". Regional government and administration in this country have become much more important in the last few years. Indeed, during the lifetime of the present Government we have seen some further developments. I referred to this matter in Standing Committee. on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" and deployed the argument fairly fully, although there was no Amendment then before the Committee, at column 268 on 2nd March. Briefly, the argument in favour of this Amendment is that it would be wise to make the terminology of "the metropolitan region" more definitive. It will be within the recollection of the House that the President of the Board of Trade, when moving new Clause No. 1, emphasised that this was a Bill of limited duration. Therefore, I would have thought that it is most unfortunate to have such wide terminology to describe a particular region as "the metropolitan region" purely for a Measure that will be effective for a period of seven years.
This is a very strange region indeed. It is a region which is laid down in the Bill. It may be diminished in size by order, but it cannot be increased in size. That was carefully set out by the President of the Board of Trade during the Committee stage. If one were choosing to define a metropolitan region it would be much wiser to have some region defined for that purpose which was going to be in the same form for a very long time. For statistical reasons that region could be referred to and it would be comparatively useful. In the Standing Committee, I sought to make areas which were contiguous to the metropolitan region part of the metropolitan region for all purposes. Unfortunately, that Amendment was not accepted, though there were good reasons for its non-acceptance.
I would remind the House that we already have in the south-east of England a great many regions defined. All these other regions, so far as I know, are not regions which are capable by


order of having their areas altered. I would refer to the new region which has been created by the First Secretary of State, an important region which I should imagine for statistical purposes will be used very widely indeed. Then we have a wider region, the region of the South-East Study. We have another region which is very often used in legislation—in fact, it is being used for the purposes of the Rent Bill now—the Metropolitan Police District. We have the standard statistical region which is normally used by the Board of Trade for statistics, and then we have the area of the Greater London Council, which is the area of Greater London to which we normally refer at present.
I believe that we are in a very grave danger of over-using these words "area" and "region" particularly in the South-East, because I think there may well be a great deal of confusion in years to come. That is why I have sought in this Amendment to be much more definitive about the word "region" in the Bill and to confine it to the specific purposes to which Part I of the Bill is directed, namely the control of offices.
It was significant that on both sides of the Committee there was great support for the Amendment which I am now moving. I was disappointed, therefore, that at a comparatively late stage the Minister of State seemed to say that there were reasons—I would not say that he called them insuperable reasons—why he could not contemplate accepting an Amendment of this nature. I should like to quote, therefore, from the Committee proceedings in order that hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee may appreciate the course of the debates which we had on this subject.
I am now about to quote exclusively from the Minister of State, Board of Trade. At column 291, on 2nd March, the Minister of State said:
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) raised a most important point, and he could have taken it further. There is some confusion among people as to what is the Metropolitan Police District and what is a region, such as the transport regions and the postal regions. Now, as he quite rightly says, we have an office region.
The Minister of State at that stage seemed to support the point that I was

making and admitted that there could be very considerable confusion. He went on to say, in column 294:
… we ought to reconsider the use of the word 'region' here.
Later in the same column he said:
I give an assurance to the hon. Member that we will try to meet him in the way he has suggested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 2nd March, 1965; c. 291–4.]
I may say that at that stage I was comparatively optimistic of success. I had succeeded with one Amendment to the Bill prior to that stage, and I was optimistic about bringing about a double. Nevertheless, one's optimism in this House is occasionally dashed to the ground. On 25th March at columns 637 and 638 the Minister of State made a statement on this subject.
… But there are difficulities, and when I attempted to carry out the promise which I gave at an earlier sitting of the Committee, I discovered that they were very real.
First of all, the concept of the metropolitan region for this purpose was first used by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1958; … There is, for example, the population growth as revealed by the census figures. and a study was made of the difficulties of travelling to work, and other information taken from employment figures. Out of all these studies this area was defined, and it is an area which was accepted in the South-East Study …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 25th March, 1965; c. 637–8.]
6.30 p.m.
I have studied that statement extremely carefully. I appreciate that there are difficulties in accepting the Amendment, but I do not believe that they are insuperable. One of my reasons for this belief is that the President of the Board of Trade told us that this area can be diminished in size by order. Therefore, the point made by the Minister of State about the importance of statistics in the region falls to the ground. If the region is to be studied for statistical purposes then, indeed, it must be a region which is not only defined but which is set out as being a region which, for statistical purposes, can be looked at as an entity and not as a region which can be diminished or altered in size.
Again, the Minister of State said that this was a region which was looked at by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1958. But I do not think that, just because it was looked at by a Ministry in 1958, we should say that at


that time it may have been described as the metropolitan region but only for internal departmental purposes. Surely we can move with the times and realise that, since 1958, a great many more regions have been defined. It is all the more important, therefore, that we should have this region described specifically as an office region. It is significant that the Metropolitan Police District is not merely called the "Metropolitan District". Everyone knows, therefore, when referring to that district that it is the area of administration of the Metropolitan Police.
I want to call attention to the fact that for this purpose other areas may well be defined by order and which will become either areas or regions. We may have the Manchester region or the Glasgow region or the Birmingham region, for instance. It will be most confusing if we start defining regions all over the country without the prefix "office" attached to the names. We might well confuse the planners. It would be a serious indictment of this House if it succeeded, in legislation, in confusing the planners, for then the country might be in a disastrous state.
I have no wish by this Amendment to sabotage anything. I certainly do not want to sabotage decisions made by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1958. I do not believe that the reasons the Minister of State gave for rejecting this suggestion in Committee were powerful ones. He might well say—and I am glad to see him now returning to the Front Bench—that he has been able to look at this matter once again. If he accepted the Amendment he would be praised by both sides of the House and by many bodies which are extremely interested in regional planning outside this House.
The last thing we want to do is to cause confusion in people's minds, but that may well come about if we define this area merely as the "metropolitan region", use it for statistical purposes for one function only and have it used very little for other purposes by various other organisations. As I have said, the Bill is temporary legislation and therefore I hope very much that we shall be much more definitive and use the words "metropolitan office region" rather than

"metropolitan region" throughout the Bill.

Mr. Jay: We approach Amendments from the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) with particular sympathy. I think that all that is between us in this case is a matter of words and not of substance. I agree that there is danger of confusion with all these "areas", "regions" and different definitions and names, and so on. It would, indeed, be simpler if we had in the South-East one region to which all our legislation and discussion could apply. The difficulty is that the metropolitan region, as he said, existed for planning purposes and was commonly used in discussion on these matters and in the South-East Study before this Bill was formulated or even conceived.
The geographical area was already in existence. It may be that it would have been more convenient, for the purpose of discussing legislation, if we could have selected for the Bill the London and south-east region as defined for the purpose of administration of the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, and so on, but that would have been contrary to the intention of the Bill because it would not have represented the area which the House wishes to take for the purpose of restricting office development.
We are bound, therefore, to select the metropolitan region which was already in existence and which had already been given that name. What the hon. Gentleman wants is to preserve that region but give it a different name—to call it the "metropolitan office region" instead. I would willingly do that if, on balance, I thought it would remove confusion from people's minds but I do not feel sure that it would. This region is described in common discussions by planners, local authorities and others as the "metropolitan region". If we gave it a different name it is likely that we would promote more confusion and not less. Apart from that, we should be adding another word to the description and, other things being equal, the fewer words we use the better. The region is known as the metropolitan region to those who discuss these things, and, therefore, it seems to us, on balance, that there is a straightforward case for leaving things as they are.
The hon. Gentleman used the argument—and I saw its force—that there is power in the Bill to diminish the size of the present metropolitan region to which these restrictions apply. If we were to do so—and it is a purely hypothetical situation at the moment—we would be detracting from some parts of the region some areas which, from a certain date, would not be covered by the powers under this Bill. No doubt, if that were to happen, it would be a further complication of the situation. I am not at all sure that it would make for less ambiguity in people's minds if there were then to be two regions—one called the "metropolitan office region" and the other the "metropolitan region". For statistical purposes, the metropolitan region is already in use. If, therefore, we were to detract certain areas from the region, the metropolitan region would still exist for other purposes. I am very doubtful whether we would clarify the situation by giving two names to the slightly different areas. I think that this is a matter of words and that on the whole, as this description is now in use, we are not persuaded that any advantage would be served by altering it.

Mr. Awdry: The right hon. Gentleman said that he approached an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) with sympathy. I hope that that sympathy extends to Amendments supported by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is in some doubt about whether to accept the Amendment and perhaps when some of us have made our short contributions we will have him on our side.
There is something more than a matter of words in the Amendment. Under a Labour Administration, with its devotion to more and more central planning, we have to get used to a whole string of measures by which some sort of control is set up. It is clearly the attitude of the Government, and I do not think that I would necessarily disagree with that attitude, that these various controls should be introduced in various parts of the country, one part at a time. The Bill's proposals are to apply only to certain areas. The Rent Bill is to apply rent control to parts of England, but

not to others. It will, therefore, be necessary, with this gradual increase of Government control, to designate the regions in which the control is to apply.
The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the metropolitan region may be decreased, but it will be decreased only for the purposes of the Bill. That is why it is only common sense to refer throughout the Bill and for all the purposes of the Bill to the "metropolitan office region". When it decreases, we shall know that the area which has decreased is that to which the Bill applies, and everyone will know where he stands.
I have some experience of local government regions. Chippenham, for example, is part of the south-west region for all purposes connected with the Board of Trade, but part of the southeast region for all housing matters. This always creates a certain confusion. It would be extremely helpful in future if, when talking about the control of offices, we could discuss the "metropolitan office region", and everybody in the House and outside would know exactly what we meant. For those reasons of common sense, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again and help us with this Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: The arguments which have been deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Awdry) have been very impressive, and I think that there is a good deal of sympathy for them among hon. Members opposite. Replying to the arguments, the President of the Board of Trade said that to add the word "office" as another regional description would add still further to the confusion rather than clarify the issue.
Personally, I think that it would make very much clearer the region to which the powers of the Bill are to apply. It would also make it clear, because the regions covered by the Bill may change, that the area covered by the expression "metropolitan region", as it is now described, would not coincide exactly with the metropolitan region as we now know it. It is not unusual to have other names inserted between the words


"metropolitan" and "region". As the Minister of State pointed out in Committee, there is the Metropolitan Police District, for example, and there are other definitions of that kind.
A further advantage would be that it would keep constantly in our minds the existence of this metropolitan office region. That is of value because this is supposed to be a temporary Bill. It is supposed to last for a period of not more than seven years. In Committee, unfortunately without success, we tried to reduce the period of the Bill, and we put forward an Amendment, to be considered on Report, with the same end, an Amendment which was not selected. Although the Bill is supposed to have a life of seven years and we have had constantly reiterated assurances from the Government that it is a temporary Bill, we should constantly have in mind that there exists a metropolitan office region. We should never lose sight of that and we should not allow it to become lost in the general planning concept of the metropolitan region.
I sincerely believe that the amount of sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite have for the Amendment will tempt them into supporting it. I was very impressed by the sympathetic attitude of the Minister of State to a proposal on these lines advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester in Committee. I thought at one time that he

would find some way to give effect to what we had in mind and he almost went so far as to say that it was his intention to alter the Bill, although he later said that certain difficulties made that impossible.

I do not think that those difficulties are insurmountable. I am of the view that the Government would like us to put them in a position where they might have to accept the Amendment, and the only way in which one can put them into such a position is by putting the Amendment to the test of a Division. If we do, I am certain that hon. Members opposite will be reluctant to go into the Lobby against the Amendment, for the simple reason that their hearts are with it and that they believe, as we do, that it is important that we should distinguish between the metropolitan region and the metropolitan office region.

I do not want to go through the arguments again, because the case has been clearly put by my hon. Friends. But because I believe that the Government themselves are really with us, but have perhaps been over-persuaded by those who advise them, and that they would like the word "office" to be inserted, I advise my hon. Friends to divide the House on the Amendment.

Question put, That "office" be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 123.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[6.47 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Atkins, Humphrey
Curran, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Biffen, John
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Black, Sir Cyril
Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Marten, Neil


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maude, Angus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Gammans, Lady
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brewis, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peel, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordle, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Corfield, F. V.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
St. John-Stevas, Norman




Sinclair, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wylie, N. R.


Stanley, Hn. Richard
Walder, David (High Peak)
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, William
Mr. Jasper More and


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Wise, A. R.





NOES


Albu, Austen
Hughes, Emrye (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, Thomas


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will


Atkinson, Norman
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bessell, Peter
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parker, John


Bishop, E. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Jackson, Colin
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W,)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jenkins, Hugh, (Putney)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Redhead, Edward


Buchanan, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr' Mrs.Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rose, Paul B.


Darling, George
Kerr, Dr. David (w'worth, Central)
Short, Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Diamond, John
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
Lubbock, Eric
Snow, Julian


Doig, Peter
McCann, J.
Solomons, Henry


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


English, Michael
Mclnnes, James
Steel, David


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Manuel Archie
Steele, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Roy
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mellish, Robert
Swingler, Stephen


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, J. J.
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Griffiths, Will (M'chester Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Warbey, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hayman, F. H.
Murray, Albert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher
Woof, Robert


Holman, Percy
Ogden, Eric



Hooson, H. E.
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley
Mr. William Howie and




Mr. Joseph Harper.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, at the end to add:
except the Greater London Borough of Bromley".
A few weeks ago a private secretary walked into the office of a friend of mine in Beckenham and resigned. My friend was very upset, because good secretaries are not all that easy to find, as many of us know. "Why do you want to go?" he said. "Oh", she said, "because I like working in the City". He tried to reason with her and pointed out that if she went to London to work she would every year spend a fortnight of her working life in the train. She said, "I do not mind that. I like the journey". The vast majority of my constituents do

not share that view. It is estimated that 14,000 of my constituents travel every day to the centre of London to work in offices.
It is possible to travel from Beckenham Junction to Victoria in 21 minutes, but usually the time taken from the constituency is at least 30 minutes. Therefore, if one is employed in an office in Central London and one works a five day week for, say, 49 weeks in the year, counting Bank Holidays one spends not less than 240 hours, or a full 10 days, or a full month of eight-hour working days, travelling to and from the Greater London Borough of Bromley and the centre of London. Perhaps this would be tolerable if conditions were comfortable, but one has only to look at a selection of the letters which I receive every month to


realise that conditions on the trains, particularly during the rush hour, are extremely uncomfortable.
Obviously, there is a strong case from the point of view of easing congestion on our overcrowded roads and railway system, and of easing the wear and tear on my 14,000 constituents who travel to Central London every day, for providing a substantial proportion of office accommodation locally so that this journey does not have to be undertaken.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: Has my hon. Friend any information about the cost of this travelling process and what proportion it represents of people's earnings?

Mr. Goodhart: As my hon. Friend will know, representing a not too dissimilar constituency, the costs are very heavy. When the Finance Bill comes up for discussion, there will be constant pressure for allowances for the fares which have to be paid. Therefore, from the viewpoint of expense and wear and tear, there is a considerable case for spreading some of the office building from the centre of London to areas such as the Borough of Bromley. I readily concede that in certain circumstances a strong case car be made for restricting office building in the centre of London, but it is much more difficult to sustain this case the further away one gets.
The effect of the Bill within the Borough of Bromley will be a damping down. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt), who hopes to be able to speak on the Amendment, knows a good deal about the effect that this ban on office building has had on the imaginative and large-scale development schemes for the centre of Bromley. Certainly, our largest project in the constituency of Beckenham, involving almost 100,000 sq. ft. of office space, is not affected, but it escaped the ban only because of a technicality—it might be said by pure chance—the signing of the contract having been completed at a certain time. Had there been a delay of a week or two, this highly desirable large-scale local development would have been stopped.
I hope, therefore, although without much optimism, that the Amendment will

be accepted. Certainly, the Bill as it stands will do no good for my constituency or for the Borough of Bromley and, like so much that the Government have done during the few months they have been in office, it will be a damping clown of desirable development.

Mr. Jay: Whether or not the constituents of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), or, indeed, the hon. Member himself, enjoy travelling from Bromley to Victoria is not the issue raised by the Amendment. The hon. Member seems to imagine that if the Bill remains in its present shape, all office development in Bromley, or in other areas which come under the Bill, will be banned by it. That is not at all the case.
All that the Bill does is to enact that anybody wishing to pursue an office development scheme must obtain permission. If there are good grounds such as those advanced by the hon. Member, as there might well be in parts of the metropolitan region, for office development, the permission would, of course, be given and I should certainly take into account everything that the hon. Member has said to me.
If, however, the Amendment was accepted, a quite different situation would arise. We would except from the control this one island in the metropolitan region while leaving High Wycombe, Southend and Reading, for example, and other important areas, still covered by it.

Mr. H. P. G. Chanson: No. There are other Amendments.

Mr. Jay: I am confining myself to this Amendment. That would not be logical. The issue on which the hon. Member spoke is, therefore, not raised by the Amendment.

Mr. John Hunt: I am pleased to give some moral and a little vocal support to the plea which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has made for the exclusion of the Greater London Borough of Bromley from the provisions of the Bill. I do this because Bromley is a borough of outstanding character, individuality and distinction. We in Bromley feel that one of the most undesirable features of the Bill is that it is essentially dictatorial in character. Once again, we seem to be returning to the era


of that know-all of Whitehall with which we were so sadly familiar during the years of the first post-war Labour Government.
Surely, it is typical of the contradictions and absurdities which have epitomised this first six months of Socialism since October that having given increased planning power and responsibility to the new London boroughs such as Bromley through the London Government Act, which in their wisdom the new Government decided not to repeal, they should now seek substantially to undermine those increased local powers by the operation of the Bill.
The old Bromley Borough Council, of which I was a member, drew up, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, an imaginative, comprehensive town centre plan based upon the fact that Bromley was to become, as it now has done, the geographical and administrative centre of the vast new Greater London Borough of Bromley of 300,000 people. In the course of preparing that plan, the old Bromley Council consulted the Location of Offices Bureau, which at that time expressed itself fully in favour of the provision of more office accommodation in Bromley. The House can, therefore. imagine the frustration and exasperation now felt within my borough at finding itself included within the provisions of the Bill.
While the President of the Board of Trade has said that he is not urging a total ban on office building in Bromley, he will at least agree, however, that a great deal of uncertainty has been created. My local council took the view, which I strongly support and which, I hope, the Government will in time support, that a modest increase of office accommodation in Bromley would help to ensure the balanced development of our town and would bring increased trade and prosperity to the whole area, as well as substantially increasing its rateable value, in addition to assisting in the general commuter problem, to which my hon. Friend has so aptly referred, and which I understood from the White Paper to be one of the main purposes of the Bill. Therefore, we in Bromley strongly resent the fact that the President of the Board of Trade, who, so far as I know, has never been to Bromley—

Mr. Jay: I assure the hon. Member that I am very familiar with Bromley South station.

Mr. Hunt: If the right hon. Gentleman knows that station, he will know that we have a very large office block planned near that site. If he knows Bromley as he says he does, he should know better than to have included my borough in his legislation.
What we resent is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government are able to override and stultify the policies which had been decided by the local borough council after several years of careful planning and preparation. It has been done by the aldermen and councillors and officials of the borough who know from their day-to-day experience the local needs and the local problems.
We in Bromley do not want to be centrally planned and regimented, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment as an earnest of their intention to administer the Bill in a fair and flexible way.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I do not live in Bromley but I know people who do, and I venture to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they were successful in the venture on which they have embarked with this Amendment no one would be more horrified than the people of Bromley. The hon. Members themselves must be rather grateful to think that the Amendment is unlikely to be carried. I hope indeed that they will not press it, because I urge them to contemplate the consequences, supposing the Amendment were to be accepted and Bromley were to be created an island in which the special protections which this Bill aims to create over the rest of London against excessive building of offices did not apply to that area.

Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the local planning committee has no control over this?

Mr. Jenkins: Certainly not, but as a member of London County Council's Town Planning Committee, which is one of the most efficient town planning committees there are, I know that the powers of control by such committees are inadequate, and that is the reason for this Bill. I have no doubt that the town planning committee of Bromley does its


best within the powers and possibilities at its disposal, but it is precisely because these committees have been found to be incapable of providing the necessary protection that this Bill has had to be introduced.
7.15 p.m.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. In Putney an area was allocated, under the existing legislation, for the purpose of providing some offices for use by local people, solicitors, bankers, and so on, but in the present situation when an area is zoned for office use there is no power to lay down precisely what sort of office use it is to be. The consequence in this case was that an area designed for use by local people was taken over by large corporations which built upon this office area substantial offices so that now we see that the skyline of Putney is owned by I.C.T., though that area occupied by I.C.T. was, in the minds of the local people, to be occupied by local people having small local offices. That is only one example of one sort of inadequacy of the present town planning legislation which has shown this new legislation to be necessary.
I hope it is not true, as I think was said, that we are to have a series of Amendments to select areas here, there and everywhere for exemption, for then this Amendment would be revealed for what I suspected it to be, not a serious Amendment at all but purely a factious, delaying opposition—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I rather suspect that it would be seen as that by people outside if not inside this House.
I rather suspect that the hon. Gentlemen would indeed by horrified if the Amendment were carried and the consequence were what it would be—a general move in the direction of Bromley, so that the people of Bromley found themselves in an increasingly nonresidential area rather than in the salubrious residential urban area which it is at present, and they found themselves with more and more offices coming into Bromley and more and more people coming into Bromley for the purpose of working in that borough.
If that were to happen I could see one possible beneficial result for the consequential change in the nature of

Bromley, the result that hon. Members opposite would lose their seats to people of the party on this side of the House. That is the only beneficial result I could foresee coming from the success of this Amendment, which I hope will be resoundingly defeated, unless the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) feels persuaded by me to withdraw it.

Mr. John Hall: I am a little sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has introduced into this debate a note which was always absent from our debates in the Standing Committee. I do not think that throughout the whole of the 15 days, which is quite a long time in which to sit in a Committee, any serious accusation was made against Members on this side of delaying tactics or of putting down Amendments purely for the sake of filibustering or delaying. Indeed, from time to time we were complimented by Members of the Government party in the Committee for helping them to get their Bill through, and for helping them to keep a quorum on two or three occasions. It escapes my memory how many occasions there were exactly, but there were certainly two or three when we kept the quorum. If we had wanted to filibuster we could have made it also impossible for the Committee to continue, but there was no accusation that any Amendments proposed from our side were for any delaying or filibustering purpose, and I would hope that the hon. Member might withdraw that accusation.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: What I said, if the hon. Gentleman would recall, was that if, as was said by one hon. Member opposite, this were to be the first of a series of Amendments designed to exempt certain areas, that would be factious opposition. If indeed it is Bromley only which it is sought to exempt, and there is no attempt to make any further of these islands, I would willingly withdraw—if we can indeed be given an assurance that it is not the intention to go round the whole of London picking out London boroughs for the purpose of isolating them.

Mr. Hall: I do not think the hon. Member has quite got the point. There are a very large number of areas listed in this Schedule. A few of them have been picked out. Some were picked out in Committee, because it was fortunate that there were on the Committee certain


Members representing areas affected by the Bill. Others have been or are to be brought to the attention of the House this afternoon. But let me assure the hon. Member that those hon. Members who have put down Amendments are not moved by any desire to hold up the business of the House. They are moved by the desire to represent the interests of their constituencies.
If I may mention my own case, I was asked by my own borough council to table an Amendment in Committee to delete High Wycombe from the Bill for very good and proper reasons, because the council; and indeed the citizens, of High Wycombe were very much concerned about the possible effects of the Bill upon them and upon their future development plans of a very far-reaching character. When later I had to tell them that unfortunately I had not been able to carry the Committee with me and High Wycombe was not to be deleted I can assure the hon. Member that they were very disappointed indeed.
It was said in Committee by the Minister of State, replying to my address on that occasion, and after he had been kind enough to say that he had admired the zeal with which I looked after the interests of my constituency, that perhaps it was not quite fair to everybody in a similar position because not everybody who would like to work for the exclusion of an area on the outskirts of the metropolitan region was a member of the Committee at the time. I pointed out at the time:
The hon. Gentleman also said that perhaps it was a little unfair that other areas which might wish to be excluded from the Schedule cannot have their cases argued in this Committee because they are not represented here by their Members of Parliament. Those areas, if they felt aggrieved … could have made representations to any Member of the Committee.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said:
It can be done before Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th March, 1965; c. 681.]

Mr. Channon: So powerful were the arguments in favour of this course that, as they could not be moved in Committee, we hoped to move Amendments on Report tonight.

Mr. Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming what I was saying.
Several hon. Members have taken advantage of the Report stage to move the deletion from the control of the Bill the areas which they represent. Even if High Wycombe was not deleted, I would not on that score alone wish to see the Amendment turned down by the Committee. I do not subscribe to the theory that there should be an equal sharing of misery. Even if High Wycombe could not be excluded, I should welcome Bromley being excluded. If the Government were prepared to accept other Amendments later in the debate, I should welcome that, too, although I should regret that I had not had the foresight to put down another Amendment relating to High Wycombe.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill would not put a complete stop to all office building. In certain cases, and in certain circumstances, that statement is literally true, but what we fear is that the Bill will be used to put a stop to all office building for a long time. This is what worries the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and Bromley (Mr. Hunt). I thought that they made a plea as a cri de coeur which would have moved even the flinty heart of the President of the Board of Trade, and I was disturbed to find that his heart was so hard that it could not be moved even by the eloquence of my hon. Friends.
I cannot think that the arguments for the Amendment could have been deployed more eloquently. Perhaps that is not fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who is to deploy his own arguments about Southend later. It may well be that he will surpass even the standards of eloquence which we have had so far, in which case, if his eloquence is such as to move the President of the Board of Trade, we might come back to this Amendment, because obviously it would be unfair—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to it, and we cannot move to Southend-on-Sea yet.

Mr. Hall: I am sure that many hon. Members would like to go to Southend-on-Sea now. My hon. Friend's constituency is a most salubrious and healthy one, and I am sure that we would be


better off enjoying the sea breezes there, than the less breezy atmosphere here.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment. I appreciate that it is not easy to take certain selected places out of the Schedule and leave others in, because it creates a feeling of unfairness on the part of those left in, but I think that my hon. Friends have made a good case for the Amendment, and I hope that applications for O.D.P.s, not only from Bromley, but from High Wycombe, will be given sympathetic consideration, and that advantage will not be taken of the Bill to put a stop to all building.
I hope that local circumstances will be taken fully into account, and that if good and sound development schemes have been evolved by borough councils to improve the facilities in their districts, and to provide better office accommodation, where it is often sadly needed, the President of the Board of Trade will give sympathetic consideration to the applications, and that O.D.P.s will be granted rather more freely than we fear under the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 1, after "area", to insert:
not being a development area".
I understand that it will be in order to discuss also Amendment No. 55, in Clause 16, page 18, line 7, at end insert:
(5) This part of this Act shall not apply to development areas.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Costain: Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill the main purpose of the Opposition was to cut out as much red tape as we possibly could. Our desire was to cut down work, not make it, and the Amendment is put forward in the confident belief that it will reduce the work of the Board of Trade.
The Amendment is directed to deleting development areas from any possible restrictions under the Bill. I was hoping that as the Amendment was announced in other parts of the House Members representing development areas would come into the Chamber. I congratulate

the hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on being present, because this is a matter of real consequence to their areas, and I hope that as the debate proceeds hon. Members representing other important areas will come in to support us.
The Amendment can be opposed for only two reasons. I cannot believe the first one, that Members do not want to support the idea of development areas and the method of helping the unemployment situation in those areas. The only other reason for opposing the Amendment is that the Government want control for control's sake.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, or the Minister of State, will not give us the story that we have heard so often, and so ineffectively, that the Board of Trade will give permission anyway, and that, therefore, the Amendments are unnecessary, because it is a fallacious argument.
Perhaps I might tell the House what is meant by a development area, because this is important in the context of these Amendments. The Fourth Annual Report by the Board of Trade, House of Commons Paper 314, published on 30th July, 1964, sets out a list of development areas. I wish that I had time to enumerate them all. For the sake of brevity, I shall list only the overall areas, because it is important, in discussing the Amendment, to realise the scope of the areas with which we are concerned. The north-eastern area has a group of districts accepted as development districts. Cumberland has three such districts. Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have one. The south-western area has a group. The north-western area has a group, particularly Barrow-in-Furness and Merseyside. Wales has a group, and Scotland has an even larger group.
The total number of those areas is of great importance, because it shows the areas in which it would be unnecessary to introduce this legislation. I say that because the whole basis of development areas is to get development to go there. I wish that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) was present. He intervened on several occasions during our proceedings in Committee, and he intervened again today, without appreciating what many of the Amendments are about.
Development areas represent 75 different parts of the country. According to the last Board of Trade census, the unemployment figure in those areas was 157,405 as against 219,047 in March of the previous year. That is, I think, a tribute to the success of the Conservative Government's efforts to overcome the burden of unemployment, and we are trying to carry on the work done by the previous Government in expanding those areas.
During the discussions on new Clause 2 we developed at length the argument about getting factories built to encourage firms to move into them. It was a valid argument for the whole country and it is even more valid for development areas. I cannot overstress the fact that if we want to get development areas going and cut down employment in them it is essential to give every encouragement for factory and office building there. I pleaded time and time again in favour of office building in Folkestone, although that is outside the scope of the Amendment. I am now putting a national case to the House.
7.30 p.m.
One of the great problems of the export trade is to make factories ready for the manufacture of export orders. I cannot believe that any hon. Member opposite or anyone in the Cabinet could put forward any argument why we should not build factories in these areas so that orders could quickly be put in hand there. So long as we have this tight Socialist legislation, the way in which to get factories built is completely to release development areas from the terms of the Bill. That would give those people who are willing to expand the economy and get on with the job an opportunity of building precisely where the Government, in their wisdom or otherwise, want them to build.
One of the problems confronting a firm which decides to expand, or which is considering a new export order, is the question of how quickly the work can be put in hand. The firm wants to know what the delay will be in tooling up and in getting factory extensions. I warn any industrialist who expects to get a factory extension built quickly under this legislation that he has not a hope and is

not being realistic, because the Government are trying to tie down development to a ridiculous figure, as we proved in Committee when we showed that the limitation meant that an extension could not be bigger than the Committee room in which we were sitting.
It is not possible to over-emphasise the need to increase facilities for the manufacture of exports. An opportunity is here provided for the Board of Trade to take some progressive measures without in any way altering the Government's doctrinaire policy in this matter. When an industrialist wants to move a factory, many factors have to be taken into account. They range over a wide area. The management and the senior foremen do not want to leave their friends, and the ladies do not want to leave their hairdressers or their tradesmen. Every possible argument is put up in order that the move should not be made. I speak with experience, because my company is building factories all over the world. It is a general pattern for industrialists, whatever their nationality, to say, "We have been here a long time. Why should we not stay? If we move it will take much too long, and we will not know what our orders are in four or five years' time".
If the Amendment is accepted, as I am sure it will be, it will provide an answer to directors who say, "We would gladly move if the orders which we can now obtain could be put in hand right away." By releasing development districts from all controls we would provide opportunities for this to be done. It is no argument for the Government to say that they always give I.D.C.s without much trouble. This is the problem of advance factories. The Amendment will bring the greatest benefit to them.
I have made my points about advance factories, and in Committee the President of the Board of Trade agreed that an Amendment of mine was unnecessary only because the Government already had the necessary powers. In saying that, he gave me a most powerful argument for this Amendment. If it were accepted, the Board of Trade could tell these people, "If you can get this order there is an advance factory in the North-East, or the North-West, into which you can move within the next few weeks." That is the way to stimulate British industry.
The difficulty arises not only in connection with manufacture, but with selling. Salesmen are operating all over the world in an ever more competitive market and if, when they go out with their samples and their tenders they have a doubt whether their firm will be able to carry out the orders they get because a long rigmarole will have to be gone through in order to obtain the permission of the Board of Trade to build an extension, they will not be very enthusiastic. The rigmarole involved amounts to a three-year operation. When one is selling in world markets one has to think in months, not years. If a salesman cannot go abroad with confidence he cannot sell with confidence. If, in the development districts, we had advance factories, ready built, so that the salesman could go out into world markets with the knowledge that their firms could move into those factories, it would help our exports enormously.
We are not asking in any way for any preference to be given to any part of the country except those parts which both parties agree need help. We are trying to put some private enterprise stimulus into the Labour Government. We are becoming more and more worried as we become tied up with Socialism. We now have a chance to release ourselves to some extent. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am sorry to have to start by raising a drafting point, but I am relieved to see that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has not put his name to the Amendment. In the absence of his imprimatur I have more confidence in making these comments. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) demanded that we should remove development areas from the scope of the Bill. Parliament has already done that in a previous Act. The words "development areas" no longer appear in our legislation. These areas are now known as "development districts", and have been so known since 1960, under the Local Employment Act of that year. It is no use hon. Members opposite tossing their heads and saying that I am being niggling. That is the real objection to the Amendment. It would be meaningless.
I want to look at the merits of the position. In spite of what the hon. Member said, he is tilting at windmills. Nobody is likely to want to extend the Bill to development districts, so there is not much point in removing them from the terms of the Bill. Another practical difficulty arises in that the Local Employment Act expires in 1967. This Measure, which is also a short-term Measure—a seven year short-term Bill—will overlap that Act. It might, therefore, lead to difficulties. We do not know what legislation will replace the 1960 Act. There might be difficulties in having this exclusion in this form in the Bill.
May I say, also, in view of all the thunder there has been about this matter, that my right hon. Friend does not want to include the development districts and to start refusing office development in those districts. If I though that he was likely to do so I should not be speaking on this Amendment, because I represent a development district. My right hon. Friend is quite happy in his desire to meet the Opposition. He is happy to say that he would be prepared to look at the point and to consider whether anything can be done. It would have to be done in another place but there is no use in blaming us for that. Had hon. Members opposite consulted the hon. Member for Crosby, this would not have happened.
On the question of Amendment No. 55, I must take a different point of view. Again, the difficulty is that it is quite unlikely that any President of the Board of Trade would want to lower the exemption limits in development districts, but the point is that the Bill gives power to raise, as well as lower. So we get the rather odd situation that in an area which had no heavy unemployment, and was not a development district, there might be no power to raise the exemption level and allow more factory development, as the hon. Gentleman wants, because there would be no power to alter, but in a competing town there would be power to raise the level if that were desired.
If we adopted the same attitude to Amendment No. 55 as to Amendment No. 4 we should be discriminating against development districts and, as I said, I should not have spoken to the first Amendment, as a representative of a development district had I thought it


was likely that the provisions would be applied to development districts. I certainly should not agree to this discrimination against development districts.
So I say to the House that so far as we can manage with the present drafting situation, we are prepared to look at the first Amendment and discuss whether something may be done in another place. With regard to Amendment No. 55, we think that the situation is better left as it is.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has left the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman made some pretty severe strictures against hon. Members on this side of the House. He went so far—I thought in the circumstances somewhat rather rashly—as to accuse us of filibustering on this Bill in respect of a previous Amendment. Then in respect of the very next Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), we find, and we are delighted—I should like to express my pleasure—that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government accepts the Amendment, undertaking, at any rate, to look again at the matter, with a view possibly to bringing forward an Amendment in another place. There could be no greater justification for the time and effort spent on attempting to improve the Bill than that we should have achieved this at this stage of the discussions.
I warmly support what the Parliamentary Secretary has said regarding the Amendment to Clause 1. One of the things which puzzles businessmen about the existing I.D.C. procedure is that after officers of the Board of Trade have spent weeks, months, it may be years, attempting to persuade them to move their factories or build an extension in a development district—I know something of this problem from both points of view, because I have a distinguished relative who was a senior official at the Board of Trade engaged on just this sort of work in the North-East—and the businessman finally says that he thinks a case has been made out and it would be worthwhile to establish a factory in the development district, the first thing he is

asked to do is apply for permission to do so.
This causes intense irritation and gives rise to the oft-repeated accusation by those concerned with practical affairs in industry that the Government Department does not know what it is doing. One thing is said and something quite different is done. This results not only in irritation, but in a breakdown of communications between industry and Government and gives rise to cynicism and to a lack of sympathy with the very objectives which the Government are trying to achieve.
It seems to me that one of the functions of this House is to try to resist a tendency, which inevitably will be exhibited by the executive, to aim all the time at administrative tidiness. If an I.D.C. procedure has been applied reasonably effectively where clearly it is needed, it must be extended over the whole sphere and applied and complied with even in areas where, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, nobody would have the slightest intention of ever refusing permission. What is the point of establishing a procedure whereby people must seek permission to carry out development if there is never any intention of refusing the permission?
This is the sort of thing which annoys and irritates those who have to deal with these matters at a practical level. It is one of the things which Governments of all complexions should do their utmost to try to eliminate. I appreciate the force of the arguments addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to Amendment No. 55. I did not take part in the Committee stage discussions, though I have tried to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of some of the debate. Hitherto, I have construed the effect of Clause 16 as being that the intention was that orders could be made to reduce the limit from 5,000 to 1,000 sq. ft. But in the light of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's observations, it is clear that the figure could go upwards as well.
Perhaps the Minister of State may give some indication whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to raise the limit for I.D.C. procedure in development districts or in any part of the country. It would be a valuable move, which might well encourage firms of the size and nature likely to be interested,


to recognise that here is one more inducement, although perhaps only a minor one, for them to settle in an area to which they are being encouraged to go. "Come to the North-East and fill in fewer forms", might be a valuable slogan to use. If the restrictions, controls and procedures, which are perhaps rightly in being in the present state of economic imbalance in the congested areas, could be progressively removed from the development districts, this would be an added inducement to firms to move.
I end by emphasising my main reason for intervening, that where these things are unnecessary they should be eliminated because they give rise to irritation and a lack of understanding between the Government and the governed.

Mr. Brewis: As the Bill affects Scotland so much, it is surprising that so little interest has up to now been shown in it from Scotland. After all, it may well mean a great deal of employment for Scotland.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in connection with this Amendment that he was not in the least likely to want to extend the subsection to any of the development districts. I should be very pleased if the Minister of State could give me some information about the position in Glasgow. To begin with, Glasgow is a development district. At the same time, it has a very difficult problem of central redevelopment which involves overspilling hundreds of thousands of people out of the centre of the City. Therefore, it might well be rather sensible to restrict the development of offices in the centre of Glasgow, although it is a development district. I should like to hear what the Government's policy will be on that point. The Minister said that he was not in the least likely to want to restrict offices there. Will he try to press on with the overspill agreements, the overspill of the Glasgow population and development of the centre, or not? I should be very grateful if the Minister would reply particularly to this point.
Also, if the Minister is trying to redeploy offices away from the metropolitan area, would it not be sensible to build advance offices, which he has the power

to do under the Local Employment Act? I am sure that by that means he could help Glasgow—by building offices in the towns surrounding the city. Has the Minister come to any decision on that? Similarly, we ought to have many more Government offices in Scotland—for example, the Forestry Commission has its offices in Savile Row and yet most of the forests in Great Britain are situated in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman take action to get more office building in Scotland? I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would, in the absence of all the Scottish Ministers, give me some idea of what he intends in regard to the development of Glasgow.

Mr. Darling: I will respond, very briefly, to that request. If the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) would read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings he would know that I gave Glasgow as an example of the need to have office control extended to Scotland, so that if the local authority and the people in Scotland generally decided that there ought not to be any further office development in the centre of Glasgow, but that office development should be steered somewhere else in Scotland, we should have this flexible control to help us achieve that.
I did not extend that remark of mine in any way. I was dealing with the proposition that the control ought not to apply to Scotland, and I was using Glasgow as an example to show why it should. As soon as that remark of mine was known, I received letters and notes from hon. Members who represent constituencies near Glasgow, and particularly the overspill areas, insisting that we should make sure that offices were moved out from Glasgow into their constituencies.
Obviously, I cannot answer in detail the points which the hon. Member for Galloway has raised, but I can assure him that we have retained this flexible control in the Bill, instead of giving way to the representations made to us to remove Scotland from the control, because possession of the control means that we shall be able to look at the problems and find for them solutions which I hope the hon. Member and everybody else in Scotland will consider to be satisfactory.

Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that we were very grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he announced that his right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider an Amendment such as appears on the Notice Paper as Amendment No. 4. However, it really is astonishing that at this late hour we should at last get something out of the Government. We plodded through sitting after sitting of the Committee, and the only concession that we got from the Government was one relating to a single word. We are grateful, of course, for what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but it is a very late hour to come forward with a concession, and even that grudgingly in that the Amendment was said to be not in the right wording. I entirely agree that it is not in the right wording, but the intention was perfectly clear.
One thing has astonished me about the debate on the Amendment. This is a debate on development districts. At the moment, there are only four hon. Members on the Government benches. Earlier, there was not a single hon. Member opposite except for the Parliamentary Secretary, who had to reply to the debate. Do hon. Members opposite take no interest in the development districts at all? Are they not concerned that there will be restrictions on development in those districts? Clause 1(2,b) contains a blanket provision covering the whole country, and the very day after the Bill became law the President of the Board of Trade could bring in an order applying this provision from Land's End to John o' Groat's, covering development districts which are in every other sense in the law distinct from other parts of the country.
Once an area is brought into the procedure of the Bill, whether it be the office development permit procedure or the industrial development certificate procedure, there is, as the Bill stands, no direction to the Board of Trade to give any consideration at all to the fact that it is in a development district.
We had the I.D.C. procedure quoted to us throughout the Committee stage as being the sort of procedure which will be adopted in giving office development permits. But in giving I.D.C.s there is a direction in the Act for the President of the Board of Trade to have consideration for development districts. In Section

38 of the 1962 Act the President of the Board of Trade is directed to give consideration to the fact that the application is for a development in a development district. As the Bill stood, there was nothing of that sort.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to consider an Amendment and to carry out the undertaking which has been given he will put that Amendment in the position in the Bill to which we have directed ours, and will allow Parliament to preclude him from making an order covering a development district. It is not sufficient that he should be called upon to consider the fact that an application refers to development in a development district. It will be satisfactory only if development districts are taken right out of the ambit of the first part of the Bill and out of the procedure for applying for office development permits.
This leads me to Amendment No. 55, which deals with the industrial development certificates. The intention of the Amendment is to exclude applications from development districts from the provisions which preclude them from developing more than 1,000 sq. ft. If we are to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to make an order reducing the figure from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft., then the intention of the Amendment is to allow industrial development in development districts to be free up to 5,000 sq. ft. as at present. That is the only intention of the Amendment. Nothing in the Bill gives us the assurance that the development districts will be allowed freedom to develop even up to the level of 1,000 sq. ft. We are told that they must go through the I.D.C. procedure even if they want to develop up to 1,000 sq. ft.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Jay: But the control in all probability would not be extended to the development districts, anyway.

Mr. Graham Page: We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to say that definitely. If he does not say it definitely, we want it in the Bill. We want to be certain that if an application is made from a development district to develop up to 5,000 sq. ft. it will not be thrown out. As the Bill stands, it can be thrown out. For many other purposes in industrial development and local authority


affairs, there is a clear distinction between development districts and every other type of district in the country. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want in any way to restrict small developments in the development districts.

Mr. Darling: Or big ones.

Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to hear that. Would he have brought forward a Bill merely to restrict industrial development in development districts for areas between 1,000 and 5,000 sq. ft.? Obviously not. Why, then, should it not be excluded from the Bill which he has brought forward? Why does he wart this blanket provision, putting on control for the sake of control? I am sure that he knows in his heart that he would not have brought in a Bill for that small purpose and that, therefore, the purpose should be excluded from the Bill. It is quite unnecessary to restrict small developments in any way in development districts, but without Amendment No. 55 development districts will be restricted to these very small developments of about 1,000 sq. ft. or under. It seems nonsense that the Bill should put those who want to develop in a development district through the whole elaborate procedure of applying to the Board of Trade for an I.D.C. in those circumstances.

Mr. Darling: I assure the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the pertinent remarks which he has made will be taken into consideration in the promise which my right hon. Friend gave.

Mr. Costain: The Minister always wins these battles. I apologise for putting down an Amendment which was wrongly worded, but I am sure that hon. Members on the back benches appreciate the difficulty which faces private Members who have not the facilities of a Government Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who is the mainstay for hon. Members on these back benches, was not present on this occasion and was not advised of the Amendment. It is a great pity that back benchers are not given special facilities in such matters. It might have been sporting on the part of the President of the Board of Trade—for this has been a happy

Committee—to bear in mind that a word in the right ear might well have been welcome.
Could a manuscript Amendment be accepted at this stage? We have had an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he accepts the principle of the Amendment. May I move a manuscript Amendment to leave out "area" and to insert "district"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): I cannot accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Costain: The offer which the Government have made on this matter has persuaded me that it is right and proper that they should move an Amendment later. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "Great Britain" and to insert "England and Wales".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House can discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments:

In page 16, to leave out lines 23 to 32.
In page 18, to leave Out lives 8 to 13.
In page 21, to leave out lines 16 to 29.
In page 22, to leave out line 42 and to insert:

(3) This Act shall extend to England and Wales only.

Mr. Taylor: I put down these Amendments with only one purpose—to enable the President of the Board of Trade to give his reasons to justify the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill. This is a very important Bill which could have a very important effect on Scotland. Scottish Members on both sides of the House must have a justification for including Scotland in the Bill. We are also entitled to an explanation of the effects of the Bill on Scotland and the policy which the Government have in mind in this connection.
It is very unfortunate that the case has not been put forward so far. I listened very carefully to the Second


Reading debate and read the proceedings in the OFFICIAL REPORT. To my surprise the only reference to the position in Scotland was at column 736 when the President of the Board of Trade said that there were not many offices in Edinburgh. As far as I can see, that was the only reference to the situation in Scotland.
We had only short interjections from hon. Members who represent Scotland. There were two short interjections from the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and one of those was of only two words. The only other reference I could find on Second Reading was a very good interjection—as we always have good interjections—from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who I am glad to see again in the House showing his interest in the Bill.
There were no fewer than 15 sittings of the Committee. A great deal was said and a great deal of ground was covered but it is surprising and alarming that on Clause 14, relating to the position in Scotland, there was a discussion reported in only one-and-a-half columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT Out of those 15 OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Mr. Archie Manuel: This is a very important point. But had Clause 14 not been in the Bill there would have been about two dozen pages in HANSARD reporting hon. Members who wondered why Clause 14 was not in the Bill and was not giving the same protection in Scotland against the extravagant waste of building materials and labour.

Mr. Taylor: That is an unusual point for the hon. Member to make. I should like to go into the point in some detail. He suggests that if the Bill had not included Scotland there would have been far more discussion. I fail to see how this would have been the case, because there was not one Scottish Member serving on the Committee—a surprising and alarming fact. I have no wish to criticise in any way the Committee of Selection, but it seems very strange that in a Bill of this nature, which is of great significance to Scotland, not one Scottish Member was on the Committee. There may be many reasons for this.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): Get to the Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I am coming to the Amendment, but I must make this point as part of my argument. The case for the inclusion of Scotland has not yet been put or discussed. Perhaps the absence from those proceedings of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies had some relationship to the fact that a Scottish Law Officer—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too wide. He must confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I now come to the detailed arguments I wish to adduce in connection with the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. You have ruled, quite properly, of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my hon. Friend must address himself to the Amendment. While I agree that it is right that he should do that, in advancing his arguments on this point is it not right that he should draw attention to the problem which faced the Committee in dealing with these Scottish points because of the absence of Scottish hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Taylor: While I would normally be brief when moving an Amendment of this nature, I have had to take somewhat longer to explain why this matter has not so far been fully discussed. We had no opportunity to discuss it, there being no Scottish Minister present in Committee. I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussion in Committee on Clause 14 relating to the position in Scotland. I was surprised to read that at the 13th sitting, on 25th March, in a short intervention by the President of the Board of Trade—there may have been some misinterpretation of his words, but since he made the remark a considerable time ago and since the right hon. Gentleman has no doubt read his comments, he would have had time to correct them if he wished to do so—we were told:
I visualise real difficulty arising from the fact that soon there will not be any hon. Members in the House representing Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 25th March, 1965; c. 613.]

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this matter of hon. Members representing Scotland. We must get down to the Amendment.

Mr. Darling: What my right hon. Friend said, and he was misreported, was that there would soon be no Conservative hon. Members for Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: If we must take it that the OFFICIAL REPORT is not accurate, then that makes it more difficult for me to put forward the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not questioning the accuracy of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I was questioning the use of the argument about whether or not certain hon. Members were present in Committee.

Mr. Taylor: I now come to the detailed arguments I wish to advance in support of the Amendment. There exists an unusual situation here when we are considering applying certain matters to Scotland. It should be remembered just what Clause 14 states. It says:
Any order made under this Part of this Act which designates an area in Scotland for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of this Act may contain such provisions as appear to the Board of Trade to be requisite for the purposes of substituting in this Part of this Act, in its application to that area, for references therein to provisions of the Act of 1962"—
and there follow the vital words:
references to the corresponding provisions of the enactments for the time being in force in Scotland relating to town and country planning, and otherwise for adapting this Part of this Act to those enactments.
This is a particularly unusual situation, for the Bill does not state categorically which Acts are involved. There is no specific reference at all, merely the general statement about
… the corresponding provisions of the enactments for the time being in force in Scotland …
This is an outrageous situation and I suggest that if there had been hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies examining the Bill carefully in Committee and if they had had adequate opportunity to speak on Second Reading they would have wanted an indication of which Acts the Government have in

mind in this wide-sweeping statement in the Clause. I have not been a Member of Parliament for very long, but I have examined a number of Measures and at no time have I seen such a wide-sweeping statement as
… enactments for the time being in force …
Laws can change, in Scotland and elsewhere, and it is unsatisfactory that the Scottish Acts involved are not specified. We are entitled to ask why the Government want to apply the Bill, or parts of it, to Scotland and, in asking this question, there are two considerations to be borne in mind. First, if the Bill is to relate to Scotland, then there should be a separate Bill for Scotland. The people of Scotland should know the precise legal position and the phrase
… references to the corresponding provisions of the enactments for the time being in force in Scotland …
is not satisfactory.
The second, more vital, point is that if this is going to apply to Scotland—either in this or in a separate Measure—then the person who should have the power to enforce it in particular districts should not be the President of the Board of Trade, although I have a high personal opinion of him, but the Secretary of State for Scotland
8.15 p.m.
Hon. Members may not be fully aware of the special position of the Secretary of State Perhaps some hon. Members do not have a clear idea of the scope of his activities. He has very wide-ranging functions affecting planning, housing, education and health—many functions that are covered by separate Ministries in England and Wales. While it might be appropriate for the President of the Board of Trade to exercise these functions throughout the country, certain powers which might be exercised in Scotland—powers which have perhaps proved successful in England and Wales—might be more advantageous to Scotland if exercised by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State might be brought into conflict with the President of the Board of Trade in exercising the functions which Parliament has laid upon him.
I do not want to signify that the Bill will not bring benefits, but if we have a


situation in which the Bill is successful in England and Wales, the same functions put into effect by the President of the Board of Trade in Scotland might bring him into conflict with many of the policies being followed by the Secretary of State.
We recently appointed the Scottish Planning Board, and local authorities in Scotland are putting forward development plans for the way they consider their areas should be developed. These are longterm plans covering such things as which areas should be commercial, industrial or residential. All this is going on through the Scottish Office, through the Secretary of State.
The President of the Board of Trade might say that there will always be full consultation with the Secretary of State, and I am sure that with the present President and Secretary of State in office there will be such consultation, but it is not good enough to justify a Bill of this nature on temporary circumstances. We do not know whether there will always be this friendly co-operation between two Ministers, but, without that spirit of tolerance between them, a most dangerous and serious situation could develop. That being so, there is a clear case for saying that the powers, if exercised at all, should be exercised by the Secretary of State by means of a Scottish Measure. We could take care that the provisions of a separate Scottish Measure related to the special circumstances of Scotland. It is well known that the Scottish Standing Committee goes into such Bills carefully, and we could make quite sure that the Bill applied precisely to the situation in Scotland.
I need to be persuaded that there are here benefits that would accrue to the Scottish nation. The Government first have to show that there is at present any area with too many offices in it, or the prospect of having too many in the future. As a Glasgow Member I can appreciate that the Government may think that we have a special situation there, as there are enormous problems of housing, replanning and development. If they think that, we should be told, and given some details.
I was a member of the Glasgow Town Council for five years, and I know that in our development plan the development committee was keeping a tight con-

trol of the situation and ensuring for the future a proper balance between industrial, commercial and residential development. The President of the Board of Trade may have more information on that subject than I have—

Mr. John Hall: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether, during his period of service on the council, there were any signs of over-development of office building in Glasgow, and whether he would have thought that there was any need for such control as is envisaged in this Bill?

Mr. Taylor: There was disagreement, of course, but my personal opinion then was that there was not an urgent problem. There were one or two empty offices in certain new office blocks, but that was more a question of rentals than anything else. But we are not concerned with whether there are too many offices but whether there is over-development of commercial premises. The question is whether there will be any transport problem, for instance, resulting from a concentration of workers. We need a detailed discussion of the position in Glasgow, Edinburgh and other Scottish towns and cities.
We were told by the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading that there was an enormous concentration of offices in London, but that the concentration was not nearly so great in Edinburgh and in several towns he mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us whether he thinks there is an urgent problem in Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen, or the near prospect of one.
If the Secretary of State had the exercise of these powers the proper course would be for him to consult the local authorities concerned. That would be nothing new, because that consultation goes on all the time, so what other purpose is there for putting forward in development plans our ideas for residential, commercial or industrial development? If there were to be a sudden alteration in the situation, perhaps in five years' time, there would be no time completely to revise our development plans, but in such circumstances, on the initiative of the local authority—or even, in special circumstances, perhaps on the initiative of the Secretary of State himself—the zonings of particular areas in the city could be changed.
As much control as is necessary can be exercised by normal democratic means, and there is a very real danger of this legislation bringing in an element of confusion whereby local authorities will not be entirely convinced that the Secretary of State has the final word. They may put forward their detailed development plans for the Secretary of State, only to find that the President of the Board of Trade has a different idea.
There may be some dubiety about there being too many offices in some parts of Scotland, but in many parts there is still need for more. Without proper argument, I would be very reluctant to agree to any proposition that might in some way, at some time and in certain circumstances restrict office development. It is pot long since this House passed the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, which was primarily concerned with ensuring that office workers had proper working facilities. I know that in Glasgow, Edinburgh and many other Scottish cities, office workers still do not have proper facilities or adequate space. I therefore feel that these Amendments are worthy of further discussion.
In Glasgow, in particular, we look forward to new office development. For one thing, the Post Office Savings Bank is coming to Glasgow. We have a special situation, and although these Amendments relate to the situation in Scotland as a whole, it might not be inappropriate if, as a Glasgow Member, I make special reference to that city. Glasgow has 29 redevelopment areas. Some of them, particularly Anderston, have substantial areas set aside for commercial premises. If we are to encourage new industry to go there, we must provide the offices.
Another point which could be argued on the need for additional offices is that generally in Scotland, although I do not criticise hon. Members who represent constituencies in England and Wales, we tend to treat education a little more seriously and give it more significance in our way of life. Over the years a far larger proportion of university graduates have come from Scotland in relation to the population—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see what relation this has to whether Scotland

should be excluded from the Bill or not.

Mr. Taylor: The point is that generally we have a high concentration of people engaged in commercial and professional jobs. If we have a high concentration of graduates in Scotland they will tend to work in offices. We should have a proper development of the area.
I can appreciate that there is some doubt whether this is very relevant to the argument, but another matter I emphasise is that office development has a direct relationship to rating potential. The rating position in Scotland is quite different from the situation in England. When we bear in mind such office premises as the one along the road from here which pays £200,000 in rates, we see that office development has a direct relationship to the whole question of local government finance.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss local government finance on this Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I have no wish to do so and I certainly will not. But I think it a fair point, directly related to this argument, that in Glasgow the average rate per head is about £27.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not persist, but must confine his argument to the question why the Bill should not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: I was hoping to put forward more arguments, but, as they were in a similar vein, perhaps it might not be appropriate to do so and I will not press them. We want a clear indication from the President of the Board of Trade of why he thinks the Bill should apply to Scotland. That argument has not been advanced. If we are to pass a Bill which has such direct relevance to the situation in Scotland, we want to know why that is so.
It may be that in certain arguments I have put forward I have given the impression, without intending to do so, that the Amendments should be pressed to Divisions. I wish to emphasise that I have no fixed opinion on this situation. I am not either for or against the Bill


applying to Scotland at present. I put forward the Amendments essentially for the purpose of hearing an argument from the President of the Board of Trade on why the Bill should apply to Scotland. I should like to have a detailed explanation on these points. More importantly, I should like the President of the Board of Trade to give his opinion, and the opinion of the Government, on whether there is justification for the Bill applying to Scotland.
If the problems in Scotland are the same, does he not think that we should have a separate Bill for Scotland and not a situation such as that comprised by the legal interpretations in Clause 14? It is a ludicrous procedure to apply the Bill to Scotland in such a strange way without referring specifically to certain Acts. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to say, at this late stage, why there should not be a separate Bill. If the Bill is to apply to Scotland, or if we are to have a separate Bill for Scotland, does he not think that the situation would be far more properly dealt with if these powers were exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland? The Minister of State for Scotland is sitting beside the President of the Board of Trade. In the circumstances, I shall understand if he does not want to give a clear answer, "Yes" or "No," now. It may be that he wants to investigate the matter further.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will look into the situation and decide at a later stage I shall understand and will not press the Amendment. It is d difficult matter to decide. I should like to think that the powers in the Bill, when applied to Scotland, would be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Consultation could take place with the President of the Board of Trade. Just as he consults the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State could consult the President of the Board of Trade. We would then remove the real danger of a conflict of policy, a conflict in direction between the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look at this question very seriously and give it careful thought. If, at this stage, he cannot give a clear, decisive answer, I shall understand.
I apologise for speaking at greater length than I otherwise would have done, but this question has not been discussed up to date. It was not discussed on Second Reading or in Committee, in detail. I hope that we shall have a detailed explanation such as we should have had some time ago. I have not covered the whole ground, but many or my hon. Friends may add other points of detail to the arguments I have advanced.

Mr. Hector Monro: I want to reinforce some of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is concerned, as I am, about the powers of the Board of Trade. Already, there is a multiplicity of bodies in Scotland with power to deal with industrial and office development. There is the Board of Trade. There is the Scottish Development Department, under the control of the Secretary of State. We now have the Scottish Planning Board. Later this year we hope to have the Highland Development Board.
There are the county and burgh councils and all the local authorities which spend so much of their time trying to attract industry and office development to their own areas. It is not only industry that we are trying to bring to Scotland. Industry may be a prime creator of employment, but we are also concerned about the constructive employment which can be provided by offices.
It is outrageous that the Board of Trade should have powers superior to those of the Secretary of State in Scotland. I am sure that we shall be told that there is the greatest co-operation between the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State. This is true. My constituency has a development district and, under the Local Employment Act, an advance factory. This has been provided by co-operation between the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office. The Board of Trade is in Glasgow and the Development Department is in Edinburgh.
This does not make for ease of consultation for industrialists, who must travel from one city to another. I know from my own personal experience that this puts industrialists who come up from


England to Scotland to a great deal of trouble. It is important that we create a good impression. It would be a great help if, in one building, there were the Board of Trade, the Development Department and, now, the Planning Board.
Local authorities have been working on their development plans for years. Most of them have had them passed during the last 10 years or so. I have been a member of a local authority for 15 years. We tell local authorities that delegation is all-important, that this will give real power to local authorities and instil enthusiasm into local authority members when they know that they have something to do. We are told that delegation is of prime importance. Under the Bill, much of the work put into development plans may be rendered nugatory because the President of the Board of Trade will have superior control over decisions to be made in respect of buildings which come under the Bill. The Board of Trade will be working from a central headquarters, sometimes many miles from the county council building or municipal chambers, which may be 50, 100, or 200 miles from Edinburgh or Glasgow. This lack of local control will be a great hindrance to local authorities which are spending so much time on constructive planning.
The Bill is closely connected with planning. It is very important that local authorities should plan constructively. The reverse of what we want would be for local authorities to plan destructively, just saying "No" to this, that, or the other. We want local planning authorities to consider what they can do to improve the position, how they can bring new buildings, new industries and new office blocks to their areas, and how they can improve the design and quality of those buildings. Never should we sit back and receive a plan, merely saying "Yes". Constructive planning is so important, and if the authorities feel that the Board of Trade may have superior control over their decisions it will remove a great deal of the enthusiasm and incentive from their deliberations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred to the tremendous financial inducements to local authorities to have fine new office buildings. If in-

creased rateable value can be brought into a burgh or a county it will help the rate burden which, as we heard earlier this afternoon, is rising quickly in Scotland. Any attraction that local authorities can bring by way of new offices and new industries to their areas should he encouraged, and I am certain that the local authorities feel, as they have felt for many years, that it is far better to work through the Scottish Office and not to have to deal with an additional office in the form of the Board of Trade.
I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart in seeking to keep the control under the Secretary of State for Scotland instead of adding this further responsibility to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Manuel: I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but I have been forced into doing so by some of the nonsense which I have heard. The crime is particularly reprehensible on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), aided by other hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench who have added their names to the Amendment, and who do not even know Glasgow, let alone Scotland.

Mr. John Hall: rose—

Mr. Manuel: Let me get started, please. We recognise that this is a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: A probing Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: If Amendment No. 48 were carried, all new office building would be wiped out entirely in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a probing Amendment he would not have asked for the removal of Clause 14 in its entirety. The hon. Member has not been here very long. He is a brash young Tory who wants to lead the Scottish Tories as soon as possible. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is a steady farmer-type who is doing very well. They are both ambitious.
The hon. Member for Cathcart—in those parts of his speech which were in order, for I must not refer to those parts which were out of order—was speaking like a brash Scottish Nationalist. He spoke about Glasgow's plans. He said that he was a member of the Glasgow


authority for five years. The hon. Member for Dumfries was in local government for a similar period. I, too, have been engaged in local government, and I have been concerned with planning. But the hon. Gentleman was not concerned with planning. He knows that the Secretary of State for Scotland must endorse all these planning permits, but he did not say so. That is one of his sins of omission. He should have acknowledged that the Secretary of State for Scotland has overall planning control, for planning is under the complete control of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the Secretary of State for Scotland has power to issue I.D.C.s?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my speech. I was about to come to that matter. Both the hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Dumfries indicated that this power should rest with the Secretary of State. We have never advocated this in connection with advance factories. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor his predecessors have had anything to do with advance factories. But Scotland has done very well with the Board of Trade. We have had every consideration from it. When deputations have visited Board of Trade offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow they have been treated very well. That has contrasted with the attitude of some local authorities I have been in contact with.
The crime of the hon. Member for Cathcart is that, knowing the housing problem in Glasgow and how many multi-storey blocks are unoccupied, he wants to omit control of office building in Scotland from this Bill. That is a heinous crime. Office building is at present disposing of scarce material and skilled building labour on monstrous blocks when that material and labour should be going into the building of home for his constituents. It is the object of the Bill to bring about this switch.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Manuel: I will give way but let me get a few sentences out first.
If this provision for Scotland had not been in the Bill the Scottish Labour

Members would have argued long to have it included but we did not need to. The hon. Member accused us of not speaking on Second Reading but, of course, we did not need to. We were unanimous in the Scottish Labour group in our welcome for this provision, which will help relieve Scotland's tragic housing problem, especially in the larger towns and cities.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that I did state that there are one or two empty offices in Glasgow? Does not he recall that I also mentioned the appalling housing problem? The point I was trying to make was that working conditions in offices have a degree of priority, though admittedly not as great as that of housing. Does not he share my concern not only for homeless families but also for those working in inadequate offices?

Mr. Manuel: Let us not get away from the main issue, which is the fact that there are empty offices in Glasgow—not just one or two but multi-storey blocks. The building of offices is taking valuable materials and labour which should be released in order to help reduce the long waiting list for housing that is Glasgow's tragedy. Many Glasgow families are living in housing conditions which are the most deplorable in Europe for gross overcrowding and unfitness. We shall have such conditions for another 25 years unless we maintain the impetus created by the Government, who really mean to cure the problem, which was getting worse under the last Administration.
The kernel of the case of the hon. Member for Cathcart and the hon. Member for Dumfries was that the Secretary of State should come into this. They spoke like Scottish Nationalists. Yet, when one praises the Board of Trade, they apparently agree. Where does one get a grip on their argument? Will not the hon. Member for Cathcart withdraw the brash remarks he made and join in our welcome to this initiative by the Board of Trade on the control of office building? Since, in addition to that control, the Secretary of State for Scotland exercises complete control on the planning side, the whole situation is as safe as houses.
Hon. Members opposite have talked about the powers of the Board of Trade and about interference with the planning of local authorities, and yet we have heard them say a hundred times that they are against planning of any kind, do not believe in planning, believe that we should leave planning to this, that and everyone, private enterprise especially. "Give people their heads"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss planning in this way.

Mr. Manuel: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that planning permission is especially mentioned in the part of the Clause to which the Amendment refers?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was entering upon a discussion of planning as planning. All he can do is to use it as an argument as to why the Bill should not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: I do not want to use any argument in support of not applying the Bill to Scotland. My argument has been that it should apply to Scotland, and I do not wish to be led away from that view.
Like every hon. Member on this side of the House, I am all in favour of retaining these powers in the Bill and applying them wherever they need to be applied, so that we get better planning and more houses and alleviate the misery of many working-class people who cannot get homes.

Mr. John Brewis: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has spoken with such exuberance that I am not sure that he has completely understood what the Bill is about. It puts an extra obstacle in the way of those creating developments such as offices mainly in the south of England. The planning power still remains. The hon. Member spoke of monstrous office blocks being allowed to be built in Glasgow, but that is the fault of the local planning authority. Adding another obstacle in the way of an office development certificate will not affect that matter one way or the other. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates what the Bill is about.

Mr. Manuel: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate what Clause 14 is about and what the Amendment is about? He was too frightened to sign the Amendment. Clause 14 does the opposite of what he has said. I have taken an intense interest in the Bill, as I do in all Bills which apply to Scotland. We want to retain Clause 14.

Mr. Brewis: I do not want to discuss Clause 14. I want to speak about Amendment No. 56. This adds the need to obtain an I.D.C. in Scotland when an existing building is to be extended by more than 1,000 sq. ft. In Scotland, 80 per cent. of new employment, I believe, is created by existing industry. I cannot conceive of a case, except possibly the City of Glasgow, and then only possibly, where one would want to put impediments in the way of small businesses wishing to expand. A small business, someone who has started making textiles, or something of the sort, in a small factory, might want to expand in a development district, or even outside such a district. I cannot conceive of a case in which we would want to put this extra obstacle in the way of an expansion of that kind.
What is now proposed is that not only should a person in those circumstances get planning permission, but that he should also go to the Board of Trade for an I.D.C. Applying for an I.D.C. is not simple. One has to fill up a long form and say how many people one intends to employ, and so on. All this is quite unnecessary. I do not mind if the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire calls me a nationalist, but it seems to me that in this case Scotland is just being dragged behind England and that the Bill is being unnecessarily applied to Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide against the inclusion of Scotland.

Mr. Jay: The Bill intends to apply a fairly strict office control to the metropolitan region in the south-east of England. We are, at the same time, taking power, with the agreement of Parliament, to extend the control to other parts of Great Britain, for this reason. I do not think that any of us could say that at no time in the next seven years is it likely that we should wish to extend the control to any other part of


Great Britain other than the metropolitan region as defined. However, at present, we have no intention of extending office control to Scotland.
The only issue raised by the Amendment is not whether we should exclude Scotland from the control—because there is no present intention of applying it—but whether we should exclude it from any possibility of control in quite different circumstances which might arise in the next seven years. Looking at the matter from that point of view, which is the relevant point of view, I do not think that there is a case for simply excluding the whole of Scotland even from the possibility of control and maintaining the control in thef rest of Britain.
If we were to take a unit, excluding Scotland, for the possible scope of control, it could perhaps be argued that Wales should also be excluded. Very similar arguments could be advanced. I do not think, however, that we should exclude the possibility of extending the control to Scotland for as long as seven years, for the very reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who made a considerable contribution to this discussion. He said that we are legislating, not just for the present situation, but for seven years ahead and for unforeseen circumstances. For those reasons, I think that it would be unwise to exclude Scotland from the possibility of control.
At present, the I.D.C. procedure applies to Scotland. That does not mean that in practically every case an I.D.C. is refused. I think that in practically no case has one been refused.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If an I.D.C. is never to be refused—and it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which one would be refused what is the point of making people go through the rigmarole of applying for one?

Mr. Jay: I was about to explain that. It is perfectly possible that there might be a proposal for a large industrial expansion scheme in one of the parts of Scotland which are, happily, very fully employed at present, notably Edinburgh, It might be worth the firm concerned and the Board of Trade pausing for discussion to decide whether it might not be more

desirable if the scheme were located, not in Edinburgh, but in another part of Scotland—say Lanarkshire or Clydeside—which was more in need of that form of employment. For that reason, it has proved wise to maintain the I.D.C. system in Scotland, even though a certificate is very seldom refused.

Mr. Brewis: Could the right hon. Gentleman conceive a case in which 5,000 sq. ft. of industrial development in Edinburgh would be relevant at all? At the moment, one does not need an I.D.C. for under 5,000 sq. ft., and that is what the right hon. Gentleman is bringing under control.

Mr. Jay: There is no intention of lowering the 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. in any part of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Bill does that. It does not, and there is no intention of doing it.
As I was saying, if there were a proposal for a large expansion scheme, there might be a case for arguing that it should be located in one part of Scotland rather than another. We cannot exclude the possibility that that situation might arise with offices. I do not think that it is likely.
We hope to do better. At present, unemployment is, happily, falling in Scotland quite rapidly. A number of industrial development schemes are going forward. We hope and intend that this should continue. It may well be that when the Government have been in office for five years there will be such office congestion in some parts of Scotland that it is desirable to have control.
I do not despair of that at all. The fact is that we do not know. As long as we do not know for certain the sensible course is to give ourselves these possible powers over Great Britain as a whole. As I say, however, there is not the slightest present intention on the part of the Government either to extend the office control to Scotland or to lower the 5,000 sq. ft. limit for I.D.C.s to 1,000 sq. ft. in any part of Scotland.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: The House will agree that, despite some mutterings from the benches opposite, this has been an interesting debate. I congratulate my hon, Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on moving


the Amendment and deploying his arguments so eloquently and forcefully. I was a little distressed to hear the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who will perhaps allow me to call him my hon. Friend, get quite so hot under the collar about this. I was even more distressed to hear him refer to my hon. Friend as brash. What the hon. Member probably really means is that if a man of his experience is stung to his feet, he will be stung to his feet not by mere brashness on anybody's part, but because of the telling points that were made by my hon. Friend. There is no question of brashness about this.
The hon. Member referred to my hon. Friend's Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. The hon. Member is an expert on that type of Amendment. Perhaps he was thinking of what he might have done in similar circumstances. We on this side recall sitting on the benches opposite when the hon. Member was on this side of the House and we were kept up until a late hour whilst he deployed various arguments—perhaps they were not even arguments, but he deployed—at considerable length for a long time. He should not take it amiss if somebody on this side, with that usual brevity which it so noticeable among Scottish Members, deploys arguments which the hon. Member does not like and which take up a little more time than he would like to be given to the debate.
During part of the debate, we have heard reference to the fact that Scottish Members have not, until now, played much part in the proceedings, either on Second Reading or in Committee or, until almost this moment, on Report. You, Mr. Speaker, quite properly said that that could not be followed up to any great length. Nevertheless, it is interesting to notice from what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that the Scottish Members opposite apparently have been so satisfied with the Bill that had these Clauses not been included, they would have pressed for their insertion. I understand that; I understand hon. Members opposite taking that view. The interesting thing is that they presumably thought that the Bill was absoluely perfect, because they took no part in the debates and made no speeches for the Bill's improvement.
The Bill clearly needed improvement, however, because the Government themselves have produced Amendments designed to improve it. Not only that, but from time to time—although not very often, I admit they have accepted Amendments moved from this side.

Mr. Willis: Get on with the Amendment.

Mr. Hall: If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I will deploy my argument in my own way. It will take me much longer if I am interrupted.
We have tried to improve the Bill and one would have thought that Scottish Members, with their known love of argument and debate, would have taken part in this. We know how much they want to take part in perfecting legislation, generally English legislation, which goes through this House and I am surprised that until now they have not taken much part in our debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart—I mention this with trepidation—raised the likely effect of the Bill upon the rateable value of certain Scottish cities. The point was relevant because, obviously, the Bill is bound to have an effect upon the rateable value of Scottish cities. If at some time within the next seven years the President of the Board of Trade envisaged the possibility that he might have to apply the Bill to Scotland, or if office development or I.D.C.s are made much more difficult to obtain, this will have a profound effect upon the rateable value of Scottish cities. I think that this was relevant to the argument which my hon. Friend deplored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who spoke with all the experience of 15 years on a local authority, and to whom tribute was paid by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—a very well deserved tribute, if I may say so—deployed a point made time and time again by hon. Members opposite when they sat on this side of the House, and that was the fear of remoteness of control. Frequently we have been told that Edinburgh is out of touch and that certainly London is completely out of touch with the needs of Scotland. This argument has been


threshed out time and time again by Scottish Members on the other side of the House when they sat on this side. It is a very real fear, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was quite right to draw attention to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), in a brief but very telling intervention, referred to the dangers of imposing extra obstacles in the way of industrial expansion. I thought he was right to draw attention to that.
I think that the President of the Board of Trade is not really very serious in the argument he advances. He produced the usual argument, and that is that this power in the Bill is one which the Government may wish to use some time or another in the future. That argument is rather like coming to the House with a Finance Bill and saying, "We are only going to impose a tax of 8s. 3d. in the £ for the current year, but nevertheless we want to write into the Finance Bill the power to increase the tax to 18s. 3d. because it is possible that at some time during the next 12 months we may wish to have the additional revenue which the increase in the tax would yield."

Mr. Jay: That is exactly what a Conservative Chancellor did four years ago in introducing his regulator.

Mr. Hall: But the President of the Board of Trade will remember that the regulator was fixed, of course. It was at a fixed percentage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we ought to get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Hall: Whether we did it or not, the argument is precisely the same, that the Government want the power in case at some time or another they may wish to use it, and it is not an argument we wish to have used too often.
The President of the Board of Trade pointed out, quite rightly of course, with regard to the building of factories under Clause 16 that there is no intention at the present time to reduce in Scotland the area of 5,000 sq. ft., but the point is that the fear is there, the power is there to do this in Scotland, while the whole emphasis in industrial activity in the last few years has been to try to

get industrial expansion in Scotland. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has this very much at heart; he has been among the foremost exponents of industrial expansion in Scotland and has done all he could to encourage it. Though the expressed intention is not at present to make the Bill apply to Scotland it nevertheless has the effect of introducing an element of doubt, and I would have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would not have wished to have done this.
It is very hard to envisage circumstances in which the restrictive provisions of this Bill would have to be applied to Scotland, but because it is possible for the President of the Board of Trade to come to the House and ask that Scotland, or other areas, should be included, anybody who wishes to develop there, any English industrialist who may be encouraged to expand his business in Scotland, has a subconscious feeling that perhaps if he does he may at some time in the future be restricted by this Bill. We are told about Glasgow, for example. We were told of problems in Glasgow which may make it necessary, so one gathers, to use the powers of this Bill there. It is, of course, no encouragement to industrialists in the South to put up factories or offices in or near that city.
I think that it is dangerous to do anything which, in any way, however slight, discourages what we all want to see, and that is the development of industrial activity in Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene, I hope that he will make his intervention brief.

Mr. Manuel: I have not started to make it yet. I am trying to get my breath back because I am a little surprised at the hon. Member giving way to me. These may be valuable powers with regard to I.D.Cs. in relation to Glasgow. Glasgow is making overspill agreements with areas to get people and industry moved out of Glasgow. It seems odd that we should try to bring it in. At the same time the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) wants industry at Stranraer. His forces there are becoming depleted. Tory voters are getting out because they cannot find work there.

Mr. Hall: That was a very interesting intervention, but I do not think that it dealt with the point I was making.
I was interested in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment in Scotland was falling. We are delighted to hear this, and to know that it arises out of the new opportunities for employment being developed in Scotland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that it arises out of the action taken by the previous Government. It is not possible to provide opportunities for employment in a few months. The present situation arises out of ideas and schemes developed by the previous Government bearing fruit, just as we said they would. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends. but I do not mind who takes the credit. The main thing is to achieve the result, and if unemployment is falling in Scotland I am the first to cheer. I do not mind whether hon. Gentlemen opposite say that this is due to them, or whether we say, and say rightly, that it is due to us. All that we want to know is that it is happening.
I think that my hon. Friends were right to table the Amendment to find out what the Government had in mind. In view of the assurance that we have had, that there is no intention of applying the provisions of the Bill to Scotland within the foreseeable future—and we are delighted to hear this, because we want to remove from the mind of anybody who is thinking of developing in Scotland a fear which will discourage him from so doing—I would advise my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In view of the assurance that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 2, after "being" to insert:
contiguous to that region and".
The effects of the Amendment with regard to Scotland are minimal, but they are, however, significant, and I hope that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will feel able to support the Amendment, even though it is not anything like as far-reaching as the previous one.
The effects of the Amendment are rather complex, but it has no connection with a new Clause which referred to areas contiguous to the metropolitan region which was rejected by the Government during the Committee stage. The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude from the provisions of Part I of the Bill, namely, the effect of office development permits, all those areas of Great Britain which are not contiguous to the metropolitan region.
I would inform my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that one of the effects of the Amendment would be to bring in areas which are now contiguous to the metropolitan area, but it would in no way have the effect, by creeping across the country, of bringing in areas that were contiguous to areas that had been added to the metropolitan region.
9.15 p.m.
This is a complex and difficult problem. At an earlier stage the President of the Board of Trade told us what the position was with respect to the metropolitan region. He said that it could be subtracted from but it could not be added to. Therefore, under the terms of the Bill, if an area contiguous to the metropolitan region were added under my Amendment, no further peripheral areas could be added to that area just because it had been added to an area described as the metropolitan region. I hope that I have made myself reasonably clear. I began by saying that the Amendment looked simple, but that its effect was fairly complex.
My hon. Friends and I have always taken the view that the extension of office development permits to what I term provincial Britain is largely unnecessary, and it is certainly unnecessary in Scotland. But we have not taken the view that there may not be a case for the extension of office development permits to areas in south-east England which may not at the moment be designated as part of the metropolitan region. The broad effect of the Amendment would be to leave the Board of Trade with power to add areas which are specifically in the South-East and which are adjacent to the metropolitan region, as defined in the Bill. I believe that for a period of seven years, which will be the operative


time of this legislation, my suggestion should be acceptable to all hon. Members.
In his reply to the last Amendment the President of the Board of Trade said that he could barely foresee circumstances in which it would be necessary to extend the provisions of the Bill to Scotland. I accept that as a statement of fact, as all hon. Members will. I would add that I can barely envisage a situation arising within seven years in which it would be necessary to bring in the whole of this office development procedure for any part of provincial Britain—and I include Wales within that term.
If I have made my case, I have shown that this is a limited approach to the problem of differentiating between the position in the south-east of England and the position which obtains throughout the rest of the country. This is a very sensible and reasonable approach. It will set a line of demarcation which is comprehensible, and it will give the President of the Board of Trade all the power that he could reasonably expect to exercise within the period of seven years. I hope that the Government will see the logic of the Amendment and be able to advise the House that it is a constructive one.

Mr. Wise: We require from my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple)—for whose motives I have a great deal of sympathy—a little more clarification of the Amendment. The term "contiguous" is easy enough to understand, but all Great Britain is really contiguous to the metropolitan area, if one really comes down to it. Does my hon. Friend mean the nearest county that touches the metropolitan area, or the nearest urban district, or the nearest rural district?
This is an important question, because as far as I can see contiguity with the metropolitan area will shortly reach Warwickshire. I should not mind sacrificing one or two rural districts in the south of Warwickshire, provided that I could retain my own constituency outside this hideous octopus. If, on the other hand, as soon as the sprawl has reached the southernmost tip of the county and the rural districts of Stratford on Avon

are threatened by the Bill I should hate to think that the whole county was going in as part of the contiguity. We must have some limitation.
I hope that the Government will agree to the Amendment, which I think a good one, and, in another place, introduce the necessary closer definition of contiguity. The Government should think themselves lucky that they have not been in office long enough to remove another place, and that they have somewhere to put these things right.

Mr. Temple: As the Member in charge of the Bill, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am permitted to speak a second time.

Mr. Speaker: As the Member in charge of the Amendment. The proposition, so amended, is correct.

Mr. Temple: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for permitting me to be in order.
I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) on this point of contiguity. I explained in the passage in which I tried to make the matter clear to the House that I was using almost incomprehensible terms and that it was a very complicated passage. May I make another attempt to explain what is meant by a contiguous area and its extent, as I see it?
Of course, I accept that if the President of the Board of Trade designated the whole of Britain in one order, the whole of Britain could, indeed, be taken to be an area contiguous to the metropolitan region. Nevertheless, in the Bill as it stands there are powers for the Board of Trade to designate areas of Great Britain, so it is presumed that the Government have in mind that there will be areas they can designate of somewhat lesser size than the whole of Britain.
During the Committee stage it was taken that an area would be either the area of a local authority or a combination of areas of local authorities. In that case, under the Bill, the Government, the President of the Board of Trade, would seek to add either an area of a local authority to the metropolitan area or a series of local authority areas to that area. Having done that—this is really the point of the Amendment—it


would be impossible for the President of the Board of Trade to add peripherally to the area thus designated as an addition to the metropolitan area.
This is a very difficult point to understand, because when an area is added to the metropolitan region it does not become part of the metropolitan region. Had the Government accepted an Amendment which I moved during the Committee stage, which had logic on its side, although I will admit a certain number of defects as well; if the Governmen had accepted the logic of my Amendment, areas contiguous to the metropolitan region would have been taken to be areas of that region. It has always struck me as being quaint in this legislation that we can detract from an area but not add to it. That is the position under the Bill. That is the reason why I have sought to add these areas.
During the Committee stage, when the question of a contiguous area was raised no difficulties about definition were raised by Government spokesmen, so it was clear that at that time what was meant by a contiguous area. I hope that it is clear to the House what I mean by a contiguous area and that it is clear what the Government mean by a contiguous area, and what is, in fact, an area contiguous to the metropolitan region. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby that I would under no circumstances reckon that either the Borough of Rugby or the rural district would be an area that I would deem to be contiguous to the metropolitan region. With these assurances and explanations I hope that we can proceed with the discussion on this Amendment.

Mr. Darling: To get the meaning of "contiguous" in its context as we had it in Committee, I should explain that I deployed such forceful arguments against the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), which he said was quite logical in the sense of dealing with the metropolitan region, that I was able to get the Committee to agree that what he was proposing was not exactly what the Opposition wanted. It would have made the contiguous areas that would be brought into the metropolitan region subject to the retrospective provisions of the Bill, which none of us wanted. We did not

proceed to argue the meaning of "contiguous", because the other arguments deployed more or less finished the operation.
But I accept what the hon. Member for the City of Chester said about this. I do not want to argue whether "contiguous" would take us up to the boundaries of Scotland, perhaps, if one designated the whole of the area from the metropolitan region to there because, of course, there is no intention of doing that. If the area of control is extended from the metropolitan region, because we are dealing with congestion in the South-East, on a purely practical basis it is likely that the extension will be into areas contiguous to the metropolitan region. We accept that, and I do not think that, unless there are arguments about the drafting, we should argue any more about the meaning of the word.
I draw the attention of the House to how this part of the Bill would read if we accepted the Amendment. Clause 1(2) would read:
The areas to which this Part of this Act applies are—

(a) the metropolitan region;
(b) any area in Great Britain outside the metropolitan region which is for the time being contiguous to that region and designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Board of Trade".

This may be all right so far as the metropolitan region goes, but the effect would be that if we were under great pressure to extend the control to, for example, Birmingham, we should be unable to do so. If this is what hon. Members opposite want, obviously we cannot accept it.
I do not want to go over all the arguments we had on this in Committee. I believe that it was on this Amendment, or a group of Amendments containing this one, that I pointed out that in previous legislation dealing with town and country planning and the alteration in the cubic content—Section 3 tolerances, and so on—the previous Government applied their controls to the whole of Great Britain in order to have freedom and flexibility to designate other areas if there was need to do so.
We would say that it is necessary that we should have power to designate other areas of the country if there is over-congestion where it is necessary to get a redistribution of office employment.


Therefore, we must stick to the terms of the Bill and reject the Amendment.
I would remind hon. Members that the whole purpose of the Bill is to deal with office employment. We are trying to get a redistribution of it. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to enable us to deal with congestion, overloading, transport difficulties and social problems which have arisen particularly in the metropolitan area as a result of the overbuilding of offices. This situation can apply in other parts of the country. We have already had representations, as I mentioned during the Committee stage, in regard to Birmingham. Unless we have authority to extend control by permission of the House, by order, to other parts of the country where the same pressures and circumstances of congestion apply, then I do not think that the Bill will be as satisfactory as it ought to be.
For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to speak in the debate, because it seemed to me that after the persuasive manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) moved the Amendment there was every reason to expect the Government to accept it. None of us wishes to go into the semantics which seem to have developed out of the meaning of the word "contiguous", but it is clear from the way in which the Amendment affects the subsection that my hon. Friend is trying to ensure that people know clearly the areas which can or cannot be affected by the extension of the Bill.
This is one way in which the Opposition have been able to try to make clear that we are not willing to see powers taken in the Bill simply for the sake of taking powers—powers which could be used anywhere and at any time. We believe that there is reason for saying that we should try to keen the extension of industries and offices from the South-East because of the congestion. The previous Government did this and the present Government are continuing to do it. To that extent the Opposition wish to give every possible support. But

we are not convinced that there is a need for some of these powers to be left in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade to be used anywhere and everywhere.
We understood the logic of the argument about contiguity to the Metropolitan region, but we find it strange that the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment in order to clear up a doubt which is left in people's minds. There will be a limitation in the desire for this form of office and industrial development throughout the country if people fear that the Bill may be extended, say, to Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. We have had assurances in Committee from the President of the Board of Trade that at this moment he does not envisage this extension. But how long does "at this moment" last? For how long can anyone considering development accept that sort of assurance? Such an assurance is worthless after a month or two months. We are trying hard by the Amendment to make it clear that the Government will not hold unnecessary controls in their hands, when in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that they did not think this extension necessary at the moment.
If they wished to insist on retaining this power they might have done it in an entirely different way. I am certain that hon. Members can envisage a manner in which it could have been done, but if I went into that I should be out of order. I must ask the Minister to be a little clearer so that people outside the House know the Government's intention in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Glasgow—because these are possible areas of control. If he says something more definite than the President of the Board of Trade said in Committee on similar matters, we might feel more disposed to accept the controls. I hope that the Minister will be more specific in his reply about these areas.

Mr. Temple: I hope that I made the position perfectly clear about my having understood the effect of the Amendment. I realised that if it was accepted it would eliminate the powers of the Board of Trade to extend O.D.P.s to what I would call provincial Britain—Man-


chester, Birmingham and Glasgow for example. We have made it clear that South-East England is a pressure area, not only for office development purposes but for rent control as well. I made exactly this point when we debated the Rent Bill recently.
I am extremely disappointed that the Government are so wedded to the policy of controls—I would say for control's sake—that they feel they must envisage the possibility, within this limited period of years, of extending the whole of these controls to the whole of provincial Britain. It will be an expensive procedure if these controls are extended. Indeed, I pointed out in Committee that all the enforcement procedures would be carried out by local authorities, and that this would be a considerable expense to ratepayers. I hope, therefore, that before the President of the Board of Trade considers extending these powers he will give careful consideration to the effect on local government and enterprise which would be brought about.
I believe that negative controls of this sort, exercised through planning and through the Board of Trade, are not the controls which encourage initiative. We need positive encouragement and, knowing what I do about provincial businessmen, I assure hon. Members that they are loath to go to any Government Department and fill in the forms which will be necessary for a modest extension of office development.
I recognise the outlook of provincial Britain, an outlook which is different from that of the South-East. While the South-East may be more sophisticated, it is not more hard-headed, because in the provincial parts of Britain there are a great many hard-headed businessmen, many of them in a relatively small way of business, who are not familiar with all the forms which the Board of Trade provides. They do not like filling out forms. I admit to not liking doing that myself. We are positively frightened by all the buff forms from the Board of Trade.
I had these things in mind. [Interruption.] I am not withdrawing the Amendment. As I drafted it myself, I was extremely gratified to find that there was no drafting error in it. It is reasonable and, in the circumstances, entirely in conformity with the outlook of the Conservative

Party. I trust that even at this late stage there may be second thoughts about the Government's approach to the Amendment.

Mr. Channon: I intervene briefly because when my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was absent from the Committee proceedings one morning owing to an important engagement I had the honour of moving a new Clause which had been drafted with his usual expertise. That new Clause related to areas contiguous to the metropolitan region. While the debate has been proceeding I have been re-reading the short debate which took place on that occasion and to which the Minister of State referred. It could be said that in that debate there was a technical knockout that might not have occurred had my hon. Friend been present.
The Minister of State based his case against that new Clause on the ground that it would retrospectively have affected areas contiguous to the metropolitan region, because they would then be considered as part of that region. Though my constituency is not affected in this case, as we are not inside the metropolitan region, I confess that I am confused—

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Hear, hear.

Mr. Temple: I wonder whether my hon. Friend observed that the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heifer), who represents a development district, was not in the Chamber when we discussed development districts?

Mr. Channon: That is true. I did not observe the hon. Gentleman present earlier when that important debate took place.
In Standing Committee, the President of the Board of Trade said that he did not think that circumstances would arise in the foreseeable future in which it would be necessary to extend the control that was to be applied to the metropolitan region to anywhere else in the country. He made —the one proviso that it might be necessary to extend the control to areas just on the fringe of the metropolitan region. I think that proviso is sensible, because wherever we draw the line there may be an anomaly on the edge of it. This evening, if I understood him aright,


the Minister of State referred to Birmingham, and it seemed to me that what was meant was that circumstances might arise in which it might be necessary to extend the control to the Birmingham area. It is important that one or other statement should be cleared up.
This is said to be a temporary Bill. We on this side argued in Committee that its period of operation of the Bill is too long, and that "temporary" should mean less than seven years. If the President of the Board of Trade does not think that in this temporary Bill it will be necessary to extend control elsewhere in England and Wales, I should have thought that there was a case for accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment. If the control is not to be extended in the foreseeable future and the Bill is only temporary but such provisions are necessary at the end of seven years, the Government of the day will no doubt have to produce a new Measure to deal with that situation.
I should have been happier in accepting the Bill as now drafted if the Minister of State had been prepared to accept the Amendment we moved in Standing Committee suggesting that the control would not be extended outside the metropolitan region unless the local authority itself had proposed this by a resolution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) told the Committee at that time:
It will be within the recollection of my hon. Friend that the Minister of State, in referring to Glasgow and other places,said that if the local authorities asked for them, the Government would bring in controls. Would not my hon. Friend agree that if the Government accepted that control would only be introduced if the local authorities asked for it, we would be satisfied?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th February, 1965; c. 124.]
That sums up in a nutshell the doubts some hon. Members have about the extension of the Bill to provincial Britain as a whole. First, we are told that in the foreseeable future it does not seem necessary to extend the control and, secondly, we are told that the Bill is temporary, yet we cannot obtain any assurance that this control will not be introduced if local authorities do not wish it to be introduced.
9.45 p.m.
I hope that the Minister of State will feel able to give a further reply to my

hon. Friend's very powerful argument for the Amendment. I have no interest in this in my constituency; I hope later in our discussions this evening to deal with points affecting my constituency. There is very little understanding outside the House, or among hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee, that the Government have these powers. On Second Reading hardly any reference was made to the fact that the Government can take powers outside the Metropolitan area should they wish to do so. The only hon. Member who referred specifically to this was the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson). For a number of good reasons I wish that he were present so that we could question him about this and also about a number of inaccuracies related to that occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Edith Pitt) made a powerful speech on Second Reading. She said that since the Bill was largely designed to deal with the situation in London she would concentrate on Clause 16, dealing with I.D.C.s, a part of the Bill which was particularly relevant to Birmingham. Many people outside do not realise the very wide powers the Government are to take under this temporary provision. I hope that the Government later in our consideration of the Bill will look at this matter again and say whether they need these powers outside the metropolitan region. If they cannot produce an Amendment tonight, or cannot accept our Amendment, they can think about the matter and produce an Amendment in another place. The present Amendment is an important and a modest one. It would not defeat the purpose of the Government when introducing the Bill. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Darling: I again refer to the first bite at this cherry, which was taken by the previous Government. Hon. Members will remember the White Paper dealing with employment, housing and land in London. The previous Government then produced a rather inadequate Bill—everyone agreed that it was inadequate—which dealt with the Schedule 3 tolerances, changing the amount of cubic feet which could be added when offices were being rebuilt. The previous Government said that that Bill would apply to the whole country,


because the provisions being clarified were part of the general planning law. Hon. Members may remember that in discussion of the Bill the point was brought out again that it might be necessary in certain circumstances, if the employment situation became intolerable in certain areas, for the control to be applied there. Hon. Members must bear in mind that before the control can be extended we have to come to the House and ask permission to extend control. The House does have authority and control over this provision.
I am sure that on reflection hon. Members would consider that it is wrong to tie the hands of the Government in this way and to make it impossible for them, even by order and permission of the House, to ask for the extenson of these provisions when clearly extensions are needed in the interests of a better distribution of employment. We went over the whole matter very thoroughly in Committee and have gone over it again. For the reasons advanced then and tonight, we cannot accept the Amendment, although I pay tribute to the way in which it was introduced by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) with forceful and good arguments. I wish I had been in a position to accept them in order to cheer up the hon. Member. We dealt rather savagely with him in Committee by not accepting a number of other Amendments he advanced in the same charming way. I regret that in spite of the arguments put forward in that way we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Hall: I am sure that the House aprpeciates the way in which the Minister of State responded to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to have another look at this matter. I would like to be associated with the Minister of State in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). We always listen to my hon. Friend with the greatest respect when he speaks on this subject. Indeed, we on this side are indebted to my hon. Friend for a great deal of guidance on the matters we have been debating over the last few weeks.
The only thing which worried me a little about the Minister of State's previous answer was his reference to the

possibility of extending the Bill when enacted to such areas as Birmingham and places outside the metropolitan area. The justification for the Bill originally was that it was designed to relieve pressure on the south-east area, particularly on the Greater London arid metropolitan region. We all appreciated the need—to some extent the urgent need—for this. I do not think that any of us, when first considering the Bill, envisaged it being applied outside that area of great pressure.
The Minister of State has argued that it is necessary to be able to do this because the time may come when the same situation will arise in other cities or areas. Whether one can envisage that happening over a period of seven years, which is supposed to be the life of the Bill, is a matter of opinion. I should have thought possibly not. Indeed, I would hope that the Bill would not last as long as seven years. Seven years is meant to be the maximum life of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides would no doubt hope that it would be possible to dispense with the provisions of the Bill in a much shorter time than that. For that reason, I am rather sorry that the Minister of State has found it possible to accept the Amendment moved so eloquently and forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester.
However, I would not at this stage advise my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment, although I must say that we are not getting very much cooperation. We managed to persuade the Government to go part of the way on a previous Amendment, but we are not getting on as well as I had hoped. Nor have the Government been quite so receptive as I had felt sure that they would be. Perhaps, now that the Patronage Secretary has joined us, we may be able to get a more receptive frame of mind on the part of the Government. It is interesting to note that for the first time a little more interest is being taken in the proceedings by hon. Members opposite. Up to now they have been content to let us carry the heat and burden of the debate. They have been content to allow us to do our best, poor as it may be, to improve the Bill, without very much help from hon. Members opposite. This is rather regrettable.
I hope that even at this late stage, on some of the equally important Amendments still to be discussed, the House may benefit from the forceful contributions of hon. Members opposite. Speaking for myself, and I am sure for my hon. Friends, we would not mind to what hour we sat if we were to have the effect of improving the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: We must remain "contiguous to that region" at the moment.

Mr. Hall: My remarks were contiguous to the remarks which went before. This is why I fell into a little error. Nevertheless, I accept your implied rebuke, Mr. Speaker.
I will content myself with saying that, although we regret very much that the Minister of State has not accepted the Amendment, we appreciate the very courteous and sympathetic way in which he dealt with it. Therefore, I would not advise my hon. Friend to press it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "particular".

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 21, after "for", insert:
providing adequate office space to meet the requirements of the commercial, industrial and professional life of the country and the modernisation of industry and for".

Mr. Awdry: I am very sorry that the Minister felt unable to cheer up my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) on the last Amendment. I am certain that if we had made progress on that Amendment we would have made more progress on this one.
These are very important Amendments, because they relate to the Clause which sets out the purpose and intention of the Bill. We feel that it is vital that everybody inside and outside the House should fully understand the criteria upon which the Board of Trade will operate when it decides whether to grant permission or not. I have naturally read the whole of the debate in Standing Committee on this Clause and I appreciate that the Minister of State gave certain

assurances. May I remind him of what he said at column 138 during the third sitting? He said:
Quite clearly, we shall take everything into consideration. The job of spelling out the criteria in legal form in the Bill, however, is a formidable one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th February, 1965; c. 138.]
It is a formidable one, but it does not daunt us on this side of the House. We have plenty of help and we shall be glad to help the Government in surmounting this difficulty of drafting a suitable Clause. Our Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are an honest attempt to help the Government to clarify the purposes of the Bill.
I am certain that the Minister would take into account all the considerations, in any case. We know the Minister and we know that if he says that, that is what he will do. But that is not good enough for the future. The place for these assurances is not in Standing Committee. The place is in the Bill itself. We can hardly expects a developer who is intending to put in an application to find out what was said during the third sitting of the Standing Committee or, indeed, in the Second Reading of the Bill. He looks at the Act of Parliament, and that is where we on this side of the House think these assurances should go. Nor do we think that a developer should have to get expensive legal advice to understand what the Bill is all about. In saying that, I am acting against my own interests, as I am a solicitor, but we on this side of the House feel that it is our duty to help the Government to make this a better and clearer Bill.
I should like to develop my argument under three heads. First, I should like to explain why we feel that the word "particular" should be deleted. Secondly, I should like to say something about the general question of the social and commercial life of an area which should be considered. Thirdly, I wish to say something about the theme of modernisation which I am sure every hon. Member feels is quite close to his heart.
On the question of the word "particular", the Minister will see that the Bill directs the President of the Board of Trade to one particular point, namely, the distribution of employment. We feel that this is far too narrow. I agree that it is an important consideration; it is one of the main considerations of the Bill,


but it is not the only one. The President of the Board of Trade should judge each case against a considerably wider background than that one issue.
The inclusion of the word "particular" may well cause difficulty to the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Standing Committee gave an extremely interesting example of this difficulty. He told us that in his constituency there was unemployment. This word "particular" might well focus the attention of the Minister on the wrong issue. Take my hon. Friend's case. It might be considered that an easy way to mop up unemployment in his constituency would be by bringing in a lot of pools promoters. It might well be a mistake to mop up unemployment in that way. There might be other industries—he quoted shipping and insurance—which it would be better to bring into the area.
It would be wrong of the President of the Board of Trade to focus his attention purely on the question of employment. We feel that if our Amendments are accepted, the difficulty of the President of the Board of Trade will be avoided because his attention will be directed to other considerations. What does the word "particular" mean? I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain. Does it mean that the President of the Board of Trade should give priority to the one consideration of employment? If it does, we think it misleading and unhelpful. Is it unnecessary? If it is, it should be deleted.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Jay.]

CONTROL OF OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Awdry: In dealing with Amendment No. 9, I come to rather wider considerations which we feel it would be helpful to have in the Bill. We are all

interested in the better distribution of employment. We must consider the general social life of the regions and that includes business, industry and the professions. We must look ahead and consider future progress and modernisation. How can the Government possibly object to that? In their policies and speeches they are constantly talking of regional development and modernisation. Why, therefore, have they been so obstinate so far in not accepting these reasonable Amendments?
I think that the reply will be that even the acceptance of these Amendments would still leave out certain considerations. That argument was used in Committee. I suppose that we shall be told that we would be leaving out questions of traffic, transport and housing. The fallacy there is that our Amendments would in no way limit the criteria of the Bill. We are trying to widen those criteria.
Even as the Bill is drafted, traffic, transport and housing will be taken into consideration. The Minister of State has said that the Board of Trade will take everything into consideration. How can it be said, therefore, that we would widen the criteria in one direction whereas transport, traffic and housing would be left out? We are not narrowing the criteria in any sense but are trying to widen them. I cannot accept that argument by the Government and I hope that the Minister of State will not bring it up again tonight. This is not just a drafting Amendment. It goes to the root of the Bill's purpose.
Thirdly, there is the question of modernisation. I imagine that every hon. Member opposite in his election address said something about modernisation and I should be surprised if most of my hon. Friends did not do the same. All parties agree that the only hope for the country is a more progressive and more modern outlook on industrial methods. But when we attempt to bring this sensible point to the attention of the Government we are shot down.
There is a genuine point here. Let us take the example of a factory which has been in an area for a long time. Pressure is brought upon the management by the workers—perhaps the draftsman—for a better place to work in, for more modern offices. One can imagine the pressure


being brought in such a way that they say, "Unless you give us better condition to work in we will work elsewhere". The building of a new office block in that place would not bring any more employment to the area.
However, if the only yardstick by which such a case is judged is to be the Bill as drafted, no permit will be granted and those new offices will not be built and the firm concerned will not modernise itself. Yet, in the name of modernisation, surely it should be allowed to do so if it brings no more employment to that area. The Board of Trade, as the Bill is drafted, would be bound to turn down an application of this kind. This is not a theoretical point, because it is the sort of situation which will arise more and more as the years go by. More and more will factories modernise themselves so that more workers have a better standard of office to work in. If the Government believe what they say about modernisation, here is a chance for them to show that they mean business.
This is a vital Clause and perhaps the most vital. If Clause 1 is not clear—and it was described in Standing Committee as the "Charter Clause" of the Bill—the rest of the Bill will fail in its objective. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that I have moved the Amendment reasonably and that he will accept it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am very happy to support the Amendment, moved with considerable force by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). I am certain that it is not the intention of the Board of Trade when exercising the powers under this "Charter Clause", as it has been called, that other important considerations, other than the regional question, should be relegated to an entirely subordinate position. If that were the case, it would introduce an element of distortion into the commercial life of the country which could do grave economic harm.
Our objection to the Clause as it stands is that over-riding importance is given to the distribution of employment and that these other important factors are placed in such a position that it will be open to those who would be responsible for the administration of the Bill to say that they are of less importance.
One is sometimes inclined, when talking about office employment, to regard office workers as being superfluous appendages to the country's main productive effort.

Mr. Darling: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jenkin: I see the Minister of State shaking his head and I at once acquit him and many other hon. Members opposite of falling into this error. But there are many people who themselves have very little to do with the sort of activities which go on in offices and who are inclined to regard office workers as encumbrances weighing down the efforts of the productive workers and being, as it were, an incubus hanging round their necks like the Old Man of the Sea. I am fairly certain that most rational people recognise that this is not so.
Furthermore, there is an increasing trend, certainly in commerce and industry, for emphasis to be placed on those who sit at desks and think, as opposed to those who stand and twiddle knobs, or do other productive work in factories.
It is not only in commerce and industry that one finds office workers. I mention a particular case relating to one of the schools in London University. Its modernisation plans and plans for developing and expanding the capacity for taking students was, in a major respect, brought to a halt because of the announcement made by the First Secretary of State.
An administrative block was to be planned which was to enable the whole of the administration of the college eventually to be housed—this is within Greater London—to make room for the expansion of residential and teaching accommodation. This had to come to a stop, because of the embargo placed on office building. I hope that eventually permission will be granted. This is a case in which office workers are essential to a rapidly expanding element of society, namely, the universities.
With regard to office workers in commerce and industry, it seems to me that the force of the Amendment is that it imports into the Statute, which is where it ought to be, as my hon. Friend has forcefully said, the fact that the Board of Trade must have regard to the reasonable requirements of office employment.


It is my misfortune that one of my duties in the firm for which I work is to be responsible for the allocation of office accommodation within central London. I therefore come fairly frequently into contact with the problem of finding space for an ever-increasing office population.
One of the directors of my firm, who has now retired, used to say that when he was young the whole office was run by two men, a boy and the office cat, whereas now there were hundreds of office workers. He was inclined, in a light-hearted way, to regard this as a measure of deterioration. I recognise that as the productivity of factory workers has increased enormously, so the employment of all sorts of office workers has had to increase, too. As a business expands, one has to have not only more management staff, but more marketing staff, sales staff, and so on. There must be more forward planning and, therefore, there must be more planning and technical staff.
One sees advertisements in the Sunday newspapers for a new range of staff—statisticians, mathematicians, economists, computer programmers, econometricians, technical representatives and so on. All these people have to be employed to increase the productivity and efficiency of industry. In addition, there are those who are perhaps rather less directly engaged on production—clerks, accountants, lawyers, and so on. These are all an essential part of the productive enterprise. It must, therefore, be right that when the Board of Trade is considering exercising its powers under the Bill it must have regard to the reasonable requirements of commerce and industry to ensure that there is space in which these people can work.
It is not only in modern industries where this is happening. I had the great privilege of going as a member of a small parliamentary delegation to the National Coal Board. We saw—hon. Members will have read about this in the newspapers—new automatic coal-getting equipment which eventually will lead, it is thought, to the completely automated coal mine. The ambition which the extremely able technical men have set themselves is that the coal will be mined by a technician sitting in the mine manager's office and that eventually there will be no one down the mine at all. A

slightly amusing point is that when I was adopted by my constituency I was stigmatised in the Daily Express as "the faceless man". I have now seen the manless face. So it has gone full circle.
10.15 p.m.
That only shows that even in the old-established industries this trend towards increasing employment of technical and planning men in offices, with a corresponding reduction in the number of manual workers, is bound to go on. Therefore, we need not be surprised if there is constant pressure for more office accommodation. It therefore seems to be right in the Bill and in this important Clause that those who administer this legislation should have their attention specifically directed to the reasonable requirements of commerce, industry and the professions.
I entirely agree that the regional planning aspect of the Bill must be the cardinal feature in it. I have already indicated in an earlier debate that this is an aspect which I support. It must not, however, be done to the detriment of the economic life of the country. It is right that this should be spelled out in the Bill. For this reason, I have much pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I do not think that any of us are really in doubt what we wish to do in dealing with this part of Clause 1. We all believe that in the administration of these office development permits the Board of Trade must take into account the effects on employment and a number of other relevant considerations. We all agree with that and we are really only discussing, in effect, the drafting question of how this can best be put into the proper legal language.
It will not be disputed that the main purpose of the Bill is to get office employment better spread out over the whole country. The main mischief which we are aiming to check is the over-concentration of employment in offices in London and the South-East which has led to all sorts of other difficulties which we need not describe at length now.
But although that is the main purpose in administering the O.D.P.s, clearly the Board of Trade must take account of the need for modernisation of offices, decent conditions in transport and housing and a number of other relevant fac-


tors which have been mentioned in these debates. It seems to me that if that is the purpose, we shall best achieve it by the existing language of the Clause.
As it is, the Bill states that
the Board of Trade shall have particular regard to the need for promoting the better distribution of employment in Great Britain.
I ask the House to notice that it is "employment in Great Britain" and not simply employment in the neighbourhood to which an O.D.P. applies. If we use that language, it is surely clear, first, that there is special emphasis on the need to promote the better distribution of employment, and that, I think, is what we all intend. It is also clear, however, because the word "particular" is used, that other relevant considerations are not excluded. Both those points are made perfectly clear by the language as it is.
If we were to do what is suggested in Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, if we were to omit "particular" and then add, in addition to "better distribution of employment", and so on, the words proposed in the Amendment,
providing adequate office space to meet the requirements of the commercial, industrial and professional life of the country …
we would surely get into a difficulty. We would then be saying that two groups of considerations are to be taken into account: first, the need for promoting

better distribution of employment, and secondly, the other points which are set out in Amendment No. 9.
If we do that, however, if we do not have the word "particular" and we mention two groups of considerations, it will be implied that other considerations which are not mentioned are not to be taken into account. Why should we select only two of the points which should be taken into account and exclude all others from mention in the Bill?
I believe, therefore, that of the two alternative forms of language, we shall really come nearer to saying what we all want to say if we put it more simply in this form that the Board of Trade
shall have particular regard to … the better distribution of employment
which is the main purpose of the whole operation. But, of course, we will, in practice, take into account all the other relevant factors. If we try to list all the other relevant factors, we are in this difficulty, that either we have to put them all in, which would not be practicable, nor efficient legislation, or, alternatively, we have to put in some and thus clearly imply that others are to be left out of account.
Having carefully considered this, and the arguments of hon. Members, I feel convinced that it would better achieve the purpose on which I think we are all agreed if we leave the wording as it now is in the Bill.

Mr. John Hall: I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) on the way he moved this important Amendment. He was brief, but to the point, and he made the issues in the Amendment very clear indeed. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), who spoke with particular knowledge of this problem, the allocation of office accommodation. The House is indebted to both of my hon. Friends for their contribution to our consideraticn of the Bill.
The President of the Board of Trade, in replying with his usual sympathy—to which, I must say, we got very much accustomed during Committee—emphasised that to retain the word "particular" in the Bill was very important. As I understood him, he was really saying that because the word "particular" is used,
the Board of Trade shall have particular regard to the need for promoting the better distribution of employment
it implied that other matters would be taken into consideration at the same time.
This is an interesting point, but I am not quite sure how it squares with the dislike which was expressed to this word "particular" by the Minister of State when, it Committee, he replies to a debate on a similar Amendment. He said:
It is the word 'particular' which is troubling us. It would mean having particular regard to the factors which are mentioned, whereas transport might become the overriding consideration and could not then be taken into consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th February, 1965; c. 141.]
One of the reasons why we tabled the Amendment was to meet this dislike to the word "particular" expressed by the Minister of State, before going on to the more general question in Amendment No. 9.
My hon. Friends and I were persuaded to table this Amendment in a slightly different form because also of the words of the President of the Board of Trade when he wound up the debate in Committee on this matter. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade remembers these words. He said:

 do not think that there is much between us on this"—
and I think that that is right; I do not think there is much between us on this—
and I am prepared to consider whether we are right in our view, which appears to me to justify the Bill in its present form. I cannot promise the introduction of an Amendment on Report because I am not now convinced that the argument of hon. Members opposite is right and mine is wrong, but as this is a matter of interpretation of drafting I am certainly prepared to consider whether this is the best form of word."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th February, 1965; c. 148.]
Obviously, the President of the Board of Trade, who will always carry out what he promises in Committee to do, has considered the wording and has come to the conclusion—as we on this side of the House consider, wrongly—that the wording is all right, and that our Amendments are not appropriate.
The President of the Board of Trade will remember that when similar Amendments were moved in Committee I pointed out that they were to cover two quite distinct points. The first was as expressed here, for
providing adequate office space to meet the requirements of the commercial, industrial and professional life of the country".
to ensure that the Board of Trade shall have particular regard to the provision of adequate office space to meet the requirements of the activities I have mentioned.
There was also the second point about the modernisation of industry, because it is not enough to provide for the better distribution of employment merely by looking at it almost exclusively from the point of view of offices. We have to look at it from the point of view also of industry as a whole throughout the country.
One must not be led away by a desire to relieve pressure in one part of the country to direct employment to another part, which, in the long term, will reduce the efficiency of industry and perhaps prevent modernisation. This is why we tabled the second Amendment. I apologise for repeating something that I said during the Committee stage, but I think that it is critical to the Bill. I said:
I believe it to be essential for these Amendments to be written into the Clause. It is what I call the charter Clause of the Bill.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will


agree that it is the charter Clause of the Bill.
It establishes the purpose and spirit of the Bill. Therefore, we believe it to be essential that the Clause should be clear and that people should know precisely what it sets out to do." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th February, 1965, c. 134.]
That is what we have tried to do in the Amendment. We have tried to make clear what the considerations are which make it necessary to have the Bill, and the considerations which must be borne in mind in applying its provisions.
I agree that there may be a case for saying that if the word "particular" is used it may limit the factors to be taken into consideration specifically to the various activities that we have tabled in the Amendment. It is because of this fear that we decided—I must add encouraged by the Minister of State, who I regret is not here—to delete the word"particular". In our innocence we thought that having done that we would have met the objection raised by the Government. We thought that once we had deleted it, the problem would be solved, but we have been sadly disillusioned.

Mr. Jay: If the word "particular" is applied to one factor, it has a different sense and effect from applying it to two or more factors, which is what the hon. Gentleman was proposing previously.

Mr. Hall: That shows the advisability of not having the word there in the first place. It may be as well to delete it and then there will be no problem at all. If we draw attention to a number of overriding or important considerations to be taken into account without—

Mr. Costain: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman were to leave out the whole of subsection (4)?

Mr. Hall: I shall be out of order if I pursue that, even though it is an interesting point.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accept the Amendment. I am sorry that the consideration which he has given to the matter since the Committee stage has not led him to the view that some expansion of the existing wording would be valuable. I still think it essential that the

Clause should be clear beyond peradventure. It should be clear what the Bill sets out to do, and it should be made clear in the Clause. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that we are not likely to get much further with the Amendment, and it is not one which we should necessarily press to a Division. I would not suggest that my hon. Friends should pursue it very much further.
We are not getting very far. We have not had a great deal of co-operation from the Government. We have had a lot of sympathetic words, as, indeed, we did throughout the Committee stage. Ministers were very friendly, and most helpful with regard to the expression of intent, but we did not get very much action. That is happening again this evening. Although we may be disposed to meet the Government as far as we can, and not press these Amendments too far, there may come a stage later on when we shall feel compelled to test the feeling of the House. I do not think that we can go on having one Amendment after another shot down in flames, without making some protest. However, I will leave the matter as it is, and leave it to my hon. Friend to take such action as he thinks fit.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: We ought to press the right hon. Gentleman just a little bit further on these two Amendments which were so ably argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). The right hon. Gentleman sat through a great part of the proceedings upstairs, and he will recall the many attempts that we made to amend subsection (4).
All these attempts had one thing in common; they were wholly unsuccessful. But we are applying our energies to this matter because this subsection is cardinal to the way in which the Bill is interpreted. It lays down, for the benefit of officials and the courts—if this were ever tested in the courts—the criteria which officials are to apply when confronted with an application for an office development permit, and because we wanted to get these criteria right and fair—by no means overlooking the cardinal objective of the right hon. Gentleman, which, as expressed here, is to promote the better distribution of employment in Britain—we spent a lot of time on our unsuccessful Amendments.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. He will recall that we had our only success in Committee on subsection (4), in persuading the Committee to delete the word "office".

Sir R. Thompson: If I overlooked that at this stage it was because in all the mass of verbiage which floats over this subsection it seemed a rather exiguous gain. But it was something, and I retract anything which I have said which might imply that the right hon. Gentlemen never gave way on anything.
As the right hon. Gentleman is clearly not disposed to give way any further, he could help us if he would reaffirm his intention that his officials will interpret their powers, in judging applications for office development permits, as flexibly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham put in a plea for flexibility. If we cannot have anything written into the Bill let the right hon. Gentleman say, with the greatest emphasis at his command, that marginal cases which come up really will be considered not only with reference to the Distribution of Industry Act.
I accept that that is the main objective, but in the case of a vast conurbation like London, where vast numbers of people carry on all sorts of trades and activities; where people come despite what the planners may wish them to do because there are high wages and good jobs available; where it is very difficult to persuade them not to come, I ask him to make it clear by his statements on the Bill that he intends his officials to take a very flexible nad wide-ranging view of the many marginal cases which will come to him.
I should like to refer to one case which, as the Bill is now drafted, would clearly fail but which it is clearly desirable should succeed. I take the example of a newspaper published in my constituency—the Croydon Advertiser—one of the best provincial newspapers published anywhere in the country, by any standard. This newspaper has been published in Croydon for generations. It is in the process of providing itself with a single large building which will contain all the editorial offices, all the printing works, and all the ancillary office space for reporters and everything else that goes with it.
To do this it is necessary for the newspaper to exceed, by 1,000 ft. or so, the limit of 2,500 ft.—as it now stands, but which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has in mind to increase to 3,000 ft. at a later stage. This is a very marginal case. It cannot be said of the people concerned that they are a "bunch of hard-faced speculators" who have descended on the borough and who wish to put up a lot of speculative office building. It is not like that at all. It is a prosperous enterprise. It has grown. It is bringing its staff into one building from various places dotted around. It has always been associated with this part of the country.
It is unthinkable that because a newspaper wants a few hundred or a thousand or so more square feet than the Bill, even as subsequently, I hope, amended, permits, it may be in danger of having the project turned down. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman means that kind of process to go on. But his officials will be guided not by various hints and suggestions which he throws out, but by what is actually written into the Bill. Therefore, can he reassure us that in this kind of case—it is not the only one; there will be plenty more—he will have regard to other considerations other than purely distribution of population? If he would say that again, he would give much-needed reassurance to many of us, not only on this side of the House but possibly on the benches behind him, and I hope that we can prevail on him to do that.

Mr. Jay: If I may speak again by leave of the House and reply to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), I am most happy to say that, of course, the intention would be to administer the powers flexibly and to take into account a number of considerations, including those which are mentioned in the Amendment. But when one examines the words and thinks out the alternatives, I think that one comes to the conclusion that unless one adopts the form of words that we have here one is then in the dilemma that either one has to mention all the considerations, which is impossible, or one is bound implicitly to exclude some of them, which is undesirable. Therefore, I think that we are well advised to stick to these words.

Mr. James Allason: There is a special consideration


in regard to the new towns around London. Virtually all of them are in the metropolitan area. The consideration in the past has been that the new town is developed to take overspill from London and provide it with work. Part of that work is office work. McAlpine was one of the first firms in the country to move out to a new town, to Hemel Hempstead, and provide office space and work there and thus remove the necessity of having to commute to London. This has been a very valuable development in relieving London of employment and relieving the railway lines to London of congestion.
The new towns have been self-supporting in trying to produce a balance of employment and housing. But the provisions of the Bill seem a little dangerous, and I should like some reassurance in relation to this subsection about what is to happen in the future. If there is to be virtually no office building over the next seven years in the new towns, the position will be that because of the very large increase in population—there is a tendency for young couples to go to new towns and produce families, and we are now reaching the second generation—there will be a great demand by young and intelligent people for office jobs.
If such jobs are not available in the new towns, what are the young people to do? Is it the Government's intention that they should return to commuting and fill office vacancies in London? I do not follow whether that is the intention. It would have the advantage of relieving pressure on housing in London if the workers came in from outside, but I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill. I should like an explanation—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Allason: In addition to the natural increase in the population in a new town there is a tendency for greater office employment and less in industry. This is a development in the newer and more up-to-date areas which will be accelerated, and it will increase the demand for office employment. We do not want to turn people away from the new towns; they are developing towns which will relieve the congestion of London and, therefore, they should be encouraged.

Mr. Channon: Is there any difference between new towns and other authorities? As in any other town, are they not subject to overall development control by the ordinary planning authorities? What is the position about the town map which is under consideration and awaiting the Minister's approval, as I believe is the case in Hemel Hempstead?

Mr. Allason: I cannot help my hon. Friend about that. In Hemel Hempstead there is an excess of office space at the moment; there are offices to let if anyone is looking for offices. But this will quickly be mopped up, and there will be no further office space available thereafter.
Where new towns differ from towns such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is that we try to produce a balance of employment and housing. If there is a demand for employment we get some more houses built quickly, because we are an expanding area, whereas other towns—such as some which I represent—tend to be commuter towns and people commute to London. There is not the same demand for local employment.
I feel that the Clause is unsatisfactory, and I should prefer account to be taken of the need to provide adequate office accommodation in those areas.

Mr. Awdry: I am sincerely disappointed that the President of the Board of Trade has not accepted the Amendment. He began by saying that he agreed with us that all the considerations which we mentioned should be taken into account, and so far, so good. He then said that it was only a drafting matter. I do not entirely agree about that. He argued that by selecting certain considerations we had by implication excluded others. He will obviously be very obstinate on this point. We are grateful for the assurance which he has given, and, as we want to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Temple: I beg to move, Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 22, at the end to insert:
(5) Nothing in this part of this Act shall apply to office development by a local authority within the area of its administration for which loan consent by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been obtained.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I think that it would be convenient for the House to take, at the same time, Amendment No. 15, in line 22, at end insert:
(5) Nothing in this part of this Act shall apply to office development required by a local authority for the purposes of the administration of its area, provided that such development is within the area of its administration.

Mr. Temple: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
As there was a considerable debate in Standing Committee on an Amendment which I moved and which was largely directed to this point, I do not propose to go at great length into the purpose of this Amendment. There is a significant difference between this Amendment and the one which I moved in Committee in that we have tried to avoid on this occasion falling into what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) described as "a hideous trap", which was pointed out by tie Minister of State. I am grateful to him for pointing out what might have been the erroneous application of the Amendment which I moved in Committee. I am also grateful to the Minister for the extreme courtesy he extended to me when we were debating an earlier Amendment tonight.
The difference between this Amendment and the one which I moved in Committee is basically that local authorities would only be exempted from the necessity to apply for an office development permit in respect of administrative offices which they proposed to build under the statutory obligations for administering local government in their areas. Under the Amendment which I moved in Committee local authorities would have been able to develop properties for purposes other than for their own administration.
This Amendment is, therefore, much more limited in its application. It gets away from the strong objections which, when pointed out, were realised by both sides of the Standing Committee. Local authorities have this statutory duty laid upon them and it is a particularly heavy one in respect of London government at present. As hon. Members are aware, the reorganisation of local government in London is causing considerable administrative upheaval. In the debate in Com-

mittee I pointed out some of the problems which were facing local authorities in the London area.
I would be the last to seek special consideration for local authorities in this instance if I did not think that this provision was justified. I believe that it is and I agree that we should separate the position of local government from national government in this respect. Local authorities have laid upon them the statutory duty for the administration in their areas. It is highly unlikely that they would be able to establish administrative offices for their own areas in any other area of the country. Different provisions obtain for national government, who are able to establish administrative offices in any part of the country. The approach of national government in this matter must, therefore, be flexible.
The local authorities are not making extravagant claims when they seek to be put in a special position. When I moved the earlier Amendment in Committee I did so with the full support of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils' Association. On that occasion the drafting was suggested to me by the Association of Municipal Corporations. On this occasion the drafting has not been suggested by that Association and I hope that it will not be found to be in any way defective.
Only this morning I received a letter from the Association of Municipal Corporations. I had not consulted the Association about the Amendment, although the letter was directed to the point of the Amendment. Our minds must have been working in concert, although we had not been in consultation. The letter, dated 13th April, stated:
The Association would like an assurance to be given by the Board that provided a local authority will give an undertaking that the use of the old premises will be restricted i.e. so as not to increase office congestion a permit will automatically be granted to the local authority to build new offices for its own use.''
I hope that that request will be considered reasonable, and that the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Secretary will give it due attention.
The objects of my Amendments are clear, and I must say that if I had to choose I would choose the drafting of Amendment No. 15 which, I think, makes the position rather clearer than does that of the other Amendment, but whatever


may be the Government's choice will be acceptable to me, and I hope that the Amendments will find more favour than did the previous Amendment I tabled on behalf of local authorities.

Mr. Curran: I begin by apologising for failing, through circumstances that I could not prevent, to take part in the Committee stage of the Bill, but I have done my best to familiarise myself with all that then happened by reading as carefully as I could the available reports. Without wishing to be in any way controversial, I want to say something about these two Amendments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) I prefer Amendment No. 15 to No. 11.
I suggest that in the Greater London area there is a real problem caused by the reorganisation of local government that is now taking place, and if I quote the situation in West Middlesex to illustrate that situation I do so, not to make a purely constituency point but because the circumstances there are paralleled elsewhere in Greater London.
In West Middlesex, four local authorities have been telescoped to form a new borough. None of the municipal premises which were in each case adequate for the local authority area concerned are big enough for the administration of the new area, so that the need to look as sympathetically as possible at a request by a new local authority for facilities to provide itself with an efficient administrative centre is very real. I agree that in Committee the Minister dealt very sympathetically with this point, and I do not now seek to be critical of him but merely to ask him to elaborate a little further what he then said.
In West Middlesex, the Hillingdon Borough Council, created by the London Government Act, merges four local authorities, but as none of the offices it has taken over from those authorities is large enough to give it an administrative base it has had to rent premises at a very high cost. It will be appreciated that rent level in West Middlesex is very high, and the Hillingdon Council has been obliged to rent two lots of offices and to pay an annual rent for them of £30,000 a year. Figures of that kind underline the need to see that these new local

authorities can as soon as possible have premises big enough to enable them to do the job given to them by Parliament.
I intervene now to ask the Minister for an assurance that he will be prepared to meet the demand of the new local authorities in London for the premises they need to do that job.

Mr. MacColl: This problem is one with which everyone will be in a great deal of sympathy. We considered it carefully in Committee and I do not think anyone can deny the reality of the problem which faces many local authorities, particularly in London.
Dealing first with the technical point of Amendment No. 11—the question of loan consent—this was raised in Committee, although, if I remember rightly, it was not put down in the form of an Amendment. The point is that the Ministry, in looking at loan consents, is considering primarily financial issues, the question of the allocation of capital resources, whether value is obtained for the ratepayers' money, and so on. This is primarily a financial test, and many people in local government complain that the temptation to go a little beyond the purely financial test is not always resisted.
To suggest that loan consent should be regarded as a substitute for permission for office development would not only challenge the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and of the Board of Trade, but it would also place a considerable administrative burden on the people responsible for giving loan consent in first of all checking up whether or not this was a case in which office development permission would have been given had it not been a problem of a local authority requiring loan consent. There is also the special difficulty of the backlog of cases where loan consent has been given but a contract has not been signed, and where there would be an automatic by-passing of the retrospective provisions of the Bill. That is the particular point.
I now want to look at the general point and, without being unduly controversial, I would only say that the Government have found themselves saddled with two crises for neither of which can they in any way be held responsible. One crisis is the tremendous overloading involved on the building industry in London—


something which is generally accepted—and, a situation which the last Government tried in other ways to check, the growth of development inside London.
The second crisis is the fact that we are faced with a fundamental reorganisation of London government—something which the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), in bold and vigorous language, described as a considerable administrative upheaval. We have the problem, on the one hand, of the administrative upheaval of the inheritance of London government reorganisation and, on the other hand, the congestion and the crisis arising from office development with which this Bill has to deal. We have to cope with them both together.
One way of not trying to cope with the problem would be by contracting out of the responsibility for considering local authority building in the context of the other crisis with which we are faced. It would not look just, and I do not think it would be just, to give this special privilege to local authorities. It is true that local authorities are in one sense often immobile. They cannot move to another area because they must provide services within their own area. But it was said in Committee that there are central government services which are in the same position. Not all central government services can move, either to other parts of the region or out of the region altogether. There are many local services which have to be provided at a local level.
There are many central government buildings which are in a poor condition and where better facilities are required. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to defend excluding local government from the Bill without abandoning the, I think, brilliant diplomatic achievement of my right hon. Friend in getting the Crown to agree to be bound by the controls of this Bill. That we have got both groups of public bodies to accept control is, on the whole, of great advantgae.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I do not think this has been explained fully. How, in fact, will this operation work against the Crown? What is the process that is going on? Are matters pending, or what is happening?

Mr. MacColl: I think that the hon. Gentleman cannot have been attending

in Committee with his usual assiduity, because this was discussed in a great deal of detail. Hon. Members may remember the argument about the telephone exchange which arose in one of the sittings of the Committee, when we went into the matter in a fair amount of detail. I think that the process will work in the way it usually works when the Crown is accepting restrictions of this sort. It will be done by inter-Departmental consultation. Before a public central government building is built, there will be consultation with my right hon. Friend to see whether this is the kind of building which would have been provided if it had not been for a public authority.
So I start by saying that I think the case for having both central government and local government under the Bill is a good one. When one comes to compare public building, on the one hand, and private building on the other, I think that the case for bringing public building under regulation seems overwhelming. I cannot imagine anything more likely to create ill-feeling and distress, than the idea of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)—a great and active protagonist of private enterprise; a vigorous contributor to the national income—being told that he must be under control, and subject to all this red tape, when round the corner, after being turned off from having the office block which he most urgently needs for his work, he sees a palatial administrative hall being built for the local council.
I am afraid that the idea that, on the whole, the citizen welcomes local government building, is not true; nor is the idea that the citizen says, "Of course, we recognise the supreme need of local government and we are glad to see that, although we cannot have a new building, local government can." That is not the way I have ever seen local communities operating. On the whole, the one thing that most irritates them is when they see rather expensive and over-elaborate buildings going up, when they are subject to restriction.
We have taken the line all along that this Bill is essential to deal with a crisis. Coming in as it is after having been too long delayed in being introduced, it is bound to be rough justice, it is bound to create a certain amount of hardship, it is bound to create a certain amount of


distress. To add to that distress a feeling of resentment and injustice, because public building was cut out of the Bill and private building was to be restricted, is something which I think it would be quite impossible to justify.

Mr. Curran: Will the Minister allow me to interrupt him? I appreciate the force of the argument he is making, but I should like him to consider one variation of the theme which I think he is overlooking. The case I have already quoted is the case where a new local authority requires to rent office premises. I have said that the Borough of Hillingdon has had to rent two lots of offices—one occupying 32,000 square feet and the other occupying 3,500 square feet. If this local authority is given permission to build, then in addition to the spectacle which it may be displaying of a lot of new buildings going up, there will be the countervailing spectacle, which I think will be equally pleasing, of premises being vacated. Would the Minister consider, where an authority requires to rent on this large scale, that this is an additional reason why it should be permitted to build, on the basis that by building it leaves other premises vacant?

Mr. MacColl: I was developing an argument on the nub of the Amendment—whether or not local authority building should be brought within control. I was going on to look at the problem of how controls would be worked and at the matters to be taken into consideration. The point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) probably comes under that heading.
I think that there are two ways in which it is necessary to look at the urgent needs of a local authority. The first is the competing claims of different local authorities for the scarce supplies of labour and materials in London. One of the difficulties here is that one of the results of the reorganisation of London government is that almost every one of the new Greater London boroughs is having to find somewhere to house itself.
In the nature of things, often the buildings which are being vacated are not as good as these which are to be built. For instance, in the borough of which I was, until that regrettable date of 1st April, a distinguished alderman, many of the

council staff worked in very old private houses which were taken over and, without much conversion, occupied for some 20 years. These will in time be vacated. That accomodation will be nothing like what will be provided in the new buildings. I do not think one could regard it as a balanced swop. The point is that someone has to look at the competing claims of the local authorities in wanting extra premises.
Secondly, even where it is established that a local authority has an urgent need—and I do not deny that local authorities have such needs—someone has to consider whether it needs a new building or whether it can make do in the same way as private people have to make do in finding an existing building. The answers to these questions may vary from place to place and from authority to authority, but they are the right questions to ask.
The only person who can look at the needs of the local authorities and others and at the resources available is the person responsible for looking at the whole trend of office building, which is my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It is he who has the proper claim.

Mr. Costain: Surely the only issue is whether the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the President of the Board of Trade is the right man to make a decision. Why does the hon. Gentleman denigrate his own Minister, who is really responsible for local authorities, and say that this responsibility must go to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is a humble man—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I am sure that both he and I feel that we have quite enough on our plate in grappling with the housing legacy left by the last Government. We are quite happy to leave this extremely technical problem of the distribution of office building to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who is the person looking at the problem in general. If it is only a question of which Department should do the job, the case is strong for that Department being the Board of Trade.
If we can get this Bill through in reasonable time so that the pipeline can be cleared and we can begin to give office development permissions, the sooner


will it be possible to do what we all want—to get adequate housing for the local authorities of the standard they require and which I do not for a moment question they should have. But I say that this moment of crisis is not the time to exclude them from control.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Since no one wishes to delay the passage of this Bill, may I very briefly refer to two points raised by the mover of this Amendment? As to the process of mental telepathic communication which the hon. Member claims is taking place between himself and the Association of Municipal Corporations, it would be appreciated if this channel could be widened so that we on this side of the House could have the Association's views at first hand. So far, I have had to rely on my own town clerk. If these matters are to be debated in the House, the Association might consider widening the scope beyond this special reference so that we might all have the benefit of its views.
Secondly, I wonder if this is the beginning of a genuine change of attitude by hon. Members opposite, because so far they have always complained that local authorities have more powers than ordinary members of the public. They have consistently said that local authorities should have powers to do only what other members of the public can do, in connection with such matters as building in the green belt and rent restrictions which do not apply to local authorities. Is this the beginning of a change in which local authorities will have more support from hon. Members opposite in future than they have had in the past?

Mr. Peter Emery: These two Amendments may appear at first sight and when moved, I thought humbly, by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple)—and that is the sort of definition I would give to the word "humbly" which has been used in another connotation in this debate—not to have quite as much importance as some of the other Amendments we have been dealing with throughout the day. But I think there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the aspects of the Bill as it affects local authorities are particularly matters which concern the efficiency of the local authorities.
I would answer directly the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) by saying that we on this side of the House believe that the best people to decide about local problems are the local people, and this I have reiterated more than once during the Committee stage. We believe also that where efficiency is concerned, the local people and the local authority are better judges of this than the Ministry, and it is specifically at this point where we want to hold exactly to the principles which we present at any time when we are concerned with local government. We are being quite consistent in holding to our general views.
If I may also answer the other question of the hon. Member about the Association of Municipal Corporations, I believe that it is quite normal practice, when matters concerning boroughs and the Association as such come up, that the Association gets in touch with its vice-presidents, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester is a vice-president. This would probably explain the slight difficulty in the mind of the hon. Member for West Derby. I am sure that neither he nor my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester would suggest that the A.M.C. is political about this. It is only trying to ensure that the views of local authorities are expressed in this House.
Turning to the two Amendments, I find that the first of them has an important aspect in that specifically we are trying to ensure that we do not embarrass the Government by causing one Minister to have to override a decision already made by another Minister. That is all that the Amendment does.
11.15 p.m.
When the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has given permission—in other words, has given loan consent—it seems nonsense to us on this side that another part of the Government should say, "Sorry, old boy, we do not quite agree with your decision. We will override it." That is not the sort of co-operation which we heard stated blandly from both the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of State when they said that they were in perfect co-ordination during the Committee stage. We thought, therefore, that


the Amendment would get the Government out of a difficulty and we were delighted to do that.
It has been suggested that Amendment No. 15 is, perhaps, slightly better than No. 11. We notice that the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) appears to No. 15 and not No. 11. I do not know whether that is fortuitous, but as so many compliments have been paid to my hon. Friend's drafting, there is something in that.
Amendment No. 15 sets out quite clearly that for the purpose of administration within its own area, a local authority should be able to have the powers to build. I found very strange the example used by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in saying why this power should not be given.
If, when we say that applications for certain O.D.Ps. were being refused, we wandered through a town and saw a new hall being built, we would consider this unreasonable. I am not under the impression that a new hall is covered by the Bill. May we know, before we leave the Amendment, whether that is so? As I read the definitions in Clause 12(5), I do not think that a hall is included. If a local authority wished to build only a hall for itself without any offices, I do not think that it would have to get Government permission.

Mr. Ogden: There are parts of the country where a hall is also known as a lobby, and, no doubt, offices also have lobbies.

Mr. Emery: We have had this a number of times and we are likely to have it again, on both Government Amendments and on other Amendments when we reach them. I am sure that you would not want me to delay the House, Mr. Speaker, in discussing the possibilities of lobbies and halls. As the Bill stands, I do not believe that a general application to build a new hall would require an O.D.P.
Whatever Ministers may say, people outside this House would believe that the central Government will get what they want. It is nonsense to suggest that if the central Government need new offices, they will be controlled by the Bill. However much Ministers say that they intend to ensure that their Department is associated

with Government policy and that they will have to apply to the President of the Board of Trade, I and the public would believe that Government Departments will get this permission. That being the case, it is nonsense to argue that local authorities must be put in the same position. The whole of that argument falls.
I therefore return to the point with which I started in trying to urge the Government to reconsider particularly Amendment No. 15 in another place, because it is designed for the efficiency of local authorities. They are spending the ratepayers' money. The concept that every local authority will be spendthrift and will build new offices for the sake of building them and that there will be competition in this—although that is not exactly what was said, it was inferred by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—is nonsense. Local authorities are responsible authorities. I can speak with experience of my own in Reading. I know the immense amount of thought—and indeed political debate—it gave to the rebuilding of the civic centre and to whether it could be afforded or not. It was judged a major requirement for efficiently coping with the local authority's administration.
I hope that the Government may be able to answer my question about the hall, and that even now they may reconsider the matter of the local authorities. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary should be arguing this case himself. He is the person responsible for this. I could well understand a Board of Trade Minister putting up the argument we have heard from the Government, but I really do not believe we are doing local government any good by the sort of argument put by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that the Government will reconsider and will have the Bill amended in another place.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I intervene only because I think the argument has got a little out of proportion. The hon. Gentleman was trying to suggest that the local authorities are pressing for this Amendment. I can tell him that the local authorities' association in London is not objecting to this Bill. It is in favour of the Bill, and is not pressing that London authorities should be exempted from it. There are 32 London boroughs. They are quite


satisfied with the assurances they are receiving from the Government and are not afraid of being put in the ridiculous position of having to run their services but not be able to have their necessary office accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) says that the people on the ground know best. For five years we in London were trying to apprise his right hon. Friend of what the people of London wanted, but he refused to accept it. This is a late conversion on the other side of the House, suddenly to discover that the people on the ground know best. They said that London reorganisation was fundamentally wrong, costly and unsound, but hon. and right hon. Members opposite refused that view.

Mr. Peter Emery: I think perhaps we are rather far from the Amendment, but let it be quite clear that though the 32 boroughs the hon. Member may speak for may have felt very strongly about it a large number of people in London did demand the reorganisation they got, and it is a very good thing that they got it.

Mr. Brown: We cannot discuss that now, but it is not in accordance with the facts. We in London know the facts. I am not sure whether Reading came into the matter at that time, but we in London and the new boroughs, let it be clear, are not pressing for this sort of Amendment. The A.M.C. did not consult the London boroughs committee. I have this in writing. It was not in touch with that committee to discuss this matter. My hon. Friend ought to be apprised of this fact. He is aware of the problems facing London boroughs and I hope that he will refuse this Amendment.

Mr. Temple: In moving this Amendment I was careful not to claim that I had had it suggested to me either by the Association of Municipal Corporations or the County Councils Association. I took the entire responsibility for this Amendment upon my own shoulders. I would point out to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) that the area of the metropolitan region extends far beyond the area covered by the London boroughs association or whatever that association may be called.
I know that in the first instance the Amendment was defective. I put it right in this Amendment, in that I

narrowed it down purely to give effect to the fact that the local authority associations would be able to build office buildings—and I emphasise "office buildings"—for their own administrative purposes within their own areas. I moved the Amendment in the spirit, which has been so ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), of local administration having a good idea of what is best for its own locality. I believe that that is the principle upon which local government can base its claims for all time.
I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's reply. I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment, but to leave it to the decision of the House. I am disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept it, because I believe that the claims of local government are special. They are different from national government, and I hope that the House will recognise that.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 22, at the end to insert:
(5) The decision of the Board of Trade shall be communicated to the applicant within two months of the receipt of the application.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be convenient to take with that Amendment, the next two Amendments: No. 13, in page 2, line 22, at end insert:
(5) Within two months of the receipt by the Board of Trade of an application for an office development permit, or within such extended period as the applicant may allow, the Board shall inform the applicant in writing of their decision thereon and of the reasons for that decision; and in default by the Board, in so informing the applicant an office development permit shall be deemed to have been issued by the Board at the expiration of the time aforesaid in accordance with the said application.
No. 14, in line 22, at end insert:
(5) The Board of Trade shall give to the applicant full reasons for their decision in granting or refusing an office development permit.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you have decided that these three Amendments may be discussed together
An Amendment similar to Amendment No. 12 was one of the most important Amendments which the Standing Committee had to discuss, and it is one of


the most important issues before the House tonight. If the Government are not prepared to concede this Amendment, and some of the other important ones, I shall find it difficult to refrain from voting against the Third Reading of the Bill. The Minister will remember that a similar Amendment was debated at some length in Committee upstairs, with the unusual result that so unable were the Government to convince their supporters, that they had to rely on the casting vote of the Chairman to defeat it.
When considering the control of office and industrial development, I do not think that anyone can seriously argue that the Board of Trade should have the right to sit on applications for an unlimited time and give no reason for doing so. These three Amendments deal with slightly different points, but they are all related. There are two answers which I suspect the Government will advance if they decide not to accept them. The first, and more important one, is that of principle, and I shall come to that in a moment. The second one is that advanced in Committees about the backlog, and one reason why all the Amendments similar to these were not taken to Divisions was that it was recognised that there might be a backlog of applications when the Bill became law.
The Government originally claimed that there was likely to be a backlog of applications during the early stages after the passing of the Bill. They claimed that too many applications would come in for them to be able to promise to give an answer to applicants within two months of the receipt of applications. I imagine that an application cannot be deemed to have been put in until the Bill has become law. Therefore, although applications are probably coming in now—and perhaps the Minister of State will tell us whether that is so—the President of the Board of Trade will have two months from the date of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent in which to answer the applicants. It is not a question of two months from the date on which the application comes in.
11.30 p.m.
The Minister of State will recall the assurance which he gave on Second Reading when he said:

… the Board of Trade cannot grant or reject permits until the Bill becomes law. It has no power to do so, but we are most anxious to minimise inconvenience to applicants and we therefore propose this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 741.]
He went on to outline the procedure which applicants must follow. I share his view about minimising inconvenience to applicants. The Amendments will deal partly with that.
Early in April, in answer to a Written Question from one of his hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade announced that an office had been set up and an address given to which applicants would send in their applications. The Board of Trade had already begun to consider them informally. Presumably a start has been made on sifting the applications. This will mean that when the Bill becomes law there will be a considerable saving of time.
When will the Bill become law? Presumably it cannot reach another place until after the Easter Recess. Time will be needed to consider it there and it may not become law until the end of May or early June. If that is so it will be the end of July or the first weeks of August before the Board of Trade will be caught by Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, though I hope that the Board will be prepared to answer very much earlier applications to which many developers have been waiting an answer for a considerable time. If it is not an insuperable burden, and I do not see why it should be, the Board of Trade should be able to give a decision within the suggested two months.
The onus is on the Board. If the Board argues that in the early stages a decision cannot be given within two months, it must tell us how many applications are awaiting an answer. The onus should always be on a Government Department to explain why it should not make arrangements for the convenience of people who are at its mercy. Applications should be dealt with in reasonable time.
If the Government shoot down the Amendment because they do not like the drafting, or even because they prefer to insert three or even four months in the Clause—and I would be reluctant to go much beyond that—I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree to a reasonable compromise. The Government could


easily make the necessary Amendment in another place. I confess that Amendment No. 12 has not the written—though I am sure that it has the moral—support of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and therefore has not been drafted sufficiently accurately. But I have no doubts at all about Amendments No. 13 and No. 14, for obvious reasons.
It is impossible for us to decide without information from the Board whether in the early stages after the passing of the Bill there will be such a backlog of applications that it will not be possible to deal with them within two months. This is why we decided not to alter materially an Amendment which we proposed at an earlier stage.
It is totally impossible for us, without adequate information, to decide how to deal with the problem of backlog—if there is to be such a problem. I hope that the Government will deal with it frankly. I hope that they will not deal with the arguments on the principle that there is likely to be a backlog in the early stages.
On general principles the Minister of State has said that he wished to have applications dealt with promptly. Every hon. Member would wish that. Surely he cannot deny that in principle it is not unreasonable to have some form of time limit within which an answer must be given.
Amendment No. 13 goes a little further. It provides that if the Board of Trade does not give its reasons within a certain time it will be deemed to have been decided that an office development permit should be granted. There are precedents for action along these lines, although slightly different—for a good reason—in town planning procedure. The Minister will recall that under that procedure if no reply is received from the local authority within two months the application is deemed to have been refused. A very different point arises in the present circumstances, because in the case of office development permits there is no effective appeal. In planning procedure there is an appeal to the Minister, and very different issues of principle arise.
The Minister argued in Committee that to pass this Amendment might be against

the interests of the applicant. I am delighted that so many hon. Members have come into the Chamber to give me vocal and moral support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] I shall indeed carry on. I am grateful to them for that advice. I venture to recapitulate to those hon. Members who have arrived late the purpose of my Amendments. It is that people who have genuine applications to put in for office development permits should not be unduly penalised by the failure of the Board of Trade to give an adequate answer within an adequate time.
I have suggested in Amendment No. 13 that if the Minister of State argues that in certain circumstances it is against the interests of the applicant that a decision should be given within a certain time—because the Board of Trade might then be tempted to refuse the application—if the applicant so agrees the time within which the Board of Trade should reply may be extended. If we are really to have a situation in which the Board of Trade wishes to have more time to consider an application, in a case which might give rise to considerable difficulty, the time can be extended. No applicant would refuse the Board of Trade extra time to consider the matter, because it would be in his interest to have the matter fully considered, otherwise the Board of Trade might refuse the application. That point has been met in the Amendment.
Amendment No. 14 provides that the Board of Trade shall give an applicant full reasons for its decision in granting or refusing a permit. I should have thought it was obvious in a case like this, where the Board of Trade is judge and jury in its own case and where there is no appeal from its decision, that if it wants to avoid a sense of unfairness being felt it should give its full reasons for refusing any application under the Bill.
There may be cases in which people wish to proceed under the terms of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act but where the Government refuse permission for people to comply with the provisions of that Act. If the Minister of State or the President of the Board of Trade had to give reasons why there had been a refusal of permission, this would be a very effective sanction against the Board of Trade's applying this restriction


unreasonably. I have no reason to think that the Board of Trade will act unreasonably. From experience with the industrial development certificates, I think that it will probably administer it fairly. But justice must be seen to be done as well as actually be done, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
I have consulted the Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries. Hon. Members will be aware of the main recommendations. It is unfortunate that no hon. Member present was a member of that Committee. We should have appreciated the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who was a member of it. In fact, we have not been graced by the presence of any member of the Liberal Party throughout our proceedings. Paragraph 98 of the Report, referring to administrative tribunals—I agree that there is a distinction between an administrative tribunal decision and the Minister's decision—says:
We are convinced that if tribunal proceedings are to be fair to the citizen reasons should be given to the fullest practicable extent. A decision is apt to be better if the reasons for it have to be set out in writing because the reasons are then more likely to have been properly thought out.
That applies just as much to a decision of the Minister as to a decision of an administrative tribunal. Paragraph 99 says:
As soon as possible after the hearing the tribunal should send to the parties a written notice of decision".
The Report goes on to make a number of other recommendations. I think that I can legitimately pray in aid the Franks Report for part of my argument.
The Minister of State will say that the Franks Report did not recommend that the Minister should within a specified time have to give an answer or the application should be deemed to have been decided in favour of the applicant. I confess that the Franks Committee did not recommend that. But Amendment No. 13 is an alternative to the other Amendments and my hon. Friends would be extremely pleased if we could have some assurance on Amendments No. 12 and No. 14 even if the President of the Board of Trade does not feel able to go as far as some of us would like in regard to Amendment No. 13.

This is an important matter, and I am sorry that it has come on so late at night, but it is nevertheless a matter which the whole House should consider seriously. It affects the rights of individuals. They are up against a powerful Government Department. If there is any doubt about which way the balance lies, it should be given to the citizen and not to the convenience of a Government Department.
An unfortunate thing about this debate is that there are so few hon. Members opposite who were present during the Standing Committee debates. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) was there, but I do not see any others. I think that the hon. Member would agree with me—at any rate, it is a proposition which is not unreasonable—that the Ministers, when arguing against such Amendments in Committee, were more concerned with administrative convenience in the Board of Trade than with the matter of principle.

Mr. R. W. Brown: The hon. Member has, in effect, just reread column 152 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. We have had all this read out although my hon. Friend answered it very adequately. As my hon. Friend has answered it, I can only feel that this reiteration of the argument is a waste of time.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member may take what view he likes; he is entitled to his view. If he thinks it improper that we should argue that a citizen should be given Government decisions in a reasonable time, then we should let people know that that is the Labour Party's view. I make no apology whatever for raising this matter, which is very important. In dealing with it in Standing Committee the Minister did so entirely on the argument of administrative procedure, and I regret that.
Of my three Amendments, I prefer Nos. 12 and 14.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: What about No. 13?

Mr. Channon: I have dealt with No. 13 and I do not intend to weary the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) any further.
These are very modest Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have noticed that hon. Members opposite are not capable of following argument very late at night. I intend to sit down in two minutes.
All that these modest Amendments ask is that the Board of Trade should indicate to an applicant within two months of receiving an application what decision it intends to give. I do not think that that is unreasonable. Amendment No. 14 asks that full reasons should be given to an applicant for the decision which the Board of Trade comes to
in granting or refusing an office development permit''.
If the Minister cannot go as far as to accept Amendment No. 13, I hope that he will seriously give consideration to the points which we have raised on Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 and try to meet us somewhere on this matter, which is important in principle.

Mr. Darling: We had a very full discussion of these Amendments in Committee and it could be said that we covered every point made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in moving it again. But I thank him for giving us notice of his intention to vote against the Third Reading, which has enlightened us about the recent activities of the Opposition Whips.
We cannot accept Amendment No. 12, largely because of the rigid time factor laid down. The hon. Member asked how we are dealing with the backlog of applications. An announcement has been made, in reply to a Question, that applications have been asked for from 3rd April. They are coming in, and being examined, but there are practical limits to our ability to come to decisions on all applications within two months. This is a new operation which puts new demands on the staff resources available in the Board of Trade, but there are two other factors apart from that. We are dependent on the response which individual firms make in reply to our request for information. We said in Committee that our experience of the I.D.C. control is that the first application often raises the need for additional information which the applicant is not always quick to supply.
I have been dealing with two I.D.C. applications today. In these instances the

delays have been entirely due to the fact that the firms concerned did not provide the proper information in the first place. In both cases Board of Trade officials went to the help of the applicants so that the information could be prepared. These applications were for B.O.T.A.C. help in the development districts—loans, grants and so on. This is a service which the Board of Trade should provide and I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased that we do provide it.
If we laid down a time limit for all applications it would be difficult for the staff of the Board of Trade to give this sort of help in cases where help should be given. Another point to remember, when considering a time limit, is that for some of the major projects for comprehensive redevelopment schemes—where the plans may not be fully drawn up to begin with and about which the applicants themselves may ask for, and be glad to have, discussions with Board of Trade officials rather than merely put in a formal application—it would be extremely difficult to get the thing finished within two months.
We believe that the flexible control that has operated for I.D.Cs.—the same kind of flexible and helpful control which we want for office developing permits—would break down if the rigid form of control suggested were applied.
I do not know how much importance should be attached to a psychological factor involved here, but it should certainly be taken into account. If we laid down a time limit and pressure was placed on the Board of Trade to deal with the big applications within two months, there might be a tendency to hold up the smaller applications which should actually be dealt with quickly. Although these are the sort of applications which should be dealt with quickly under the I.D.C. procedure, they might be held up if a two months' limit applied.
I do not want to stress this psychological approach among Board of Trade officials, but I mention it because we want this procedure to be flexible. We want to deal with all applications as quickly as possible. Because in exceptional cases, where help must be given at the beginning because the information we want has not been submitted, and because some major comprehensive projects could probably not be dealt with within two


months, we feel that the time limit suggested is too rigid.
Amendment No. 13 would put a statutory obligation on the Board of Trade to give a decision on an application within two months of the receipt of the application. The pressure which there would be on the Board of Trade to reach hasty decisions if a time limit were imposed would be intense, and large schemes which might have received permits had the cases been examined thoroughly would perhaps be in great danger of being turned down.
We consider that there would be no reason, in view of the way in which the Amendment is framed, for the applicant himself to allow the Board of Trade an extension of time to consider the application, for it is provided in the Amendment that the applicant could gain a permit by refusing to let the Board of Trade have extra time beyond the two months.
The hon. Gentleman called in aid, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) previously, the town planning procedure. As I suggested, in a rather Machiavellian way, one should consider the matter in reverse of what is provided in the Bill. The hon. Member for Crosby said that they did this because there is an appeal procedure in regard to planning, but none in the Bill. It is true that there is no formal procedure in the Bill for appeal, but there is a very effective appeal procedure through Members of Parliament up to the Minister. I must point out, as I did in the Standing Committee, that the time limit which applies to the local planning authority does not apply to the Minister. Therefore, to suggest that the thing has been granted if an application is not deal with within two months is something which, even with the well-deployed argument of the hon. Member for Crosby, we cannot accept, because we do not think that the two operations are in any way analogous.
The effect of Amendment No. 14 would be that if an application were turned down the Board of Trade would have to give full reasons for doing so. We know from experience of the industrial development certificate procedure that a decision can be influenced, and frequently is influenced, by the knowledge that other

applications in the same area are under consideration. That might be a factor in the decision, but the Board of Trade could not disclose that other applications were being considered, and their nature. The Amendment says that "full reasons" must be given. It would be impossible for us to give the full reasons without breaking the confidence we must have in discussions of I.D.Cs.
The hon. Member for Southend, West said that he did not expect the Board of Trade to be unreasonable and, of course, it would not be unreasonable. The whole experience of the Board of Trade over the last 20 years with regard to control of industrial development has been to be reasonable, and I think that we should leave the rules of operation much as they are under the I.D.C. policy, and not attach the controls and limitations that are sought, because we propose to operate office control in exactly the same reasonable way as that in which the I.D.C. control has been operated.
In operating the I.D.C. control, we are under no statutory obligation to explain our decisions and there is no formal procedure, but it works extremely well, because there must be frank discussion to get the flexible control we want. In practice, our negotiations with applicants make the Board of Trade's views on the matter and its decisions perfectly clear.
As I said before, where an I.D.C. is refused the applicant can always raise the matter again with higher officials in the Board and with Ministers at the Board of Trade through his Member of Parliament. We think that the informality of the I.D.C. system has worked well, and that to change it now would do far more harm than good. I do not think that anybody would benefit at all by the rigid limits and rules and considerations and conditions and qualifications which hon. Members opposite seek now to impose.
I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: These three Amendments seek to provide a procedure after an application has been made for an office development permit that would prevent unnecessary delays in the Government Department, to the serious detriment of the applicant. I assume that the Board of Trade intends to communicate its decision to the applicant, and the first part


of the first Amendment is to ensure that we get the communication to the applicant.
How soon should that communication be? Surely, it should be within two months of the application being made, unless the applicant himself has failed to give sufficient information—and, as the Minister of State has said, there may be occasions on which the applicant has failed to give that information. But surely if he is then asked to supply that information he is not going to force the Board of Trade to deal with the application within two months or turn it down. It is entirely within the hands of the Board of Trade to turn down the application if the applicant endeavours to force the pace in that way when he has not provided sufficient information.
12 m.
Is it the intention of the Board of Trade, when communicating the results, to tell the applicant why it has come to its decision? I was anxious when the Minister of State said that in the case of I.D.C.s it is not the custom to give the reason for the decision.

Mr. Darling: Not in all cases.

Mr. Page: In certain cases it is withheld from the applicant. In the cases of which I have had experience the reason has always been given, and courteously given. I should have thought that the proper practice here, particularly when office development permits are so concerned with planning, would be for the decision to be given and that this ought to be written into the Bill.

Mr. Darling: I probably did not make this as clear as I should have done. In many cases we should like, on the applicant's behalf, to keep the application open, but, for reasons that I gave during the Standing Committee proceedings and briefly mentioned a few moments ago, where developments are coming along it is impossible to give a decision right away until all the other developments in the area have been properly considered. But one wants to keep the application open, and for more than two months in many cases.

Mr. Page: The applicant, if he had any sense, would see that point and would not wish to force the Board of

Trade to reject his application because he was asking the Board to give a decision within two months, but the applicant should have the right to hasten a Government Department to give a decision, to state its reasons for the decision and not to delay it indefinitely. If this is a reasonable procedure, surely there is no objection to putting it into the Bill.
Our purpose throughout the discussions on this type of Amendment has been to reduce the obstructions and the irritants of Government Department procedure to an applicant who has put forward a commercial proposition and has made an application for development. We have tried to overcome the obstructions, obstacles and irritants except where they are absolutely necessary in order to carry out the Government's policy.
As the Minister of State said, it is recognised in town planning law that the authority to whom one has to apply must give the decision within a certain time, but in that case the sanction in town planning law is that if the decision is not given by the local authority in a specific time an appeal lies to the Minister. The Minister of State cannot complain if we have not drawn the Amendment in that way in this case. He has deprived us of our right of appeal in this case. There is no appeal to the Minister, and although we have tried to introduce this into the Bill, it has been denied to us. Therefore, the only sanction in this case is to say that if the application has not been granted within two months, then it is deemed to have been granted.
We have been told that we must leave the applicant and the Board of Trade to carry on their informal discussions—I gather, to carry them on indefinitely, not at the applicant's will but at the will of the officials at the Board of Trade—and that the applicant can never call a halt and say "I really must have the decision now." I am not impressed by that argument. Here we are dealing with commercial necessities. The applicant who comes forward for an office development permit is not coming forward with an application which can wait month after month. He is making application because he wants to develop in a certain area and he wants to develop at once. Therefore, he wants a decision on his application.
Although there may be some advantage in having flexible control, there is no advantage in having indefinite control that can carry on for a length of time. Of course, a Government Department will not want to be pushed to make a decision. Of course, it will not want to say why it has come to a certain decision, but the Minister should really protect the public against this Departmental attitude. He is there as a communication with the public, in order to protect them against this bureaucratic attitude which a Government Department naturally adopts. We have laid down in these three Amendments a very simple and reasonable procedure, and I should have hoped that the Government could have accepted it as such.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: By way of introduction, I should like, first, to take up the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown), who suggested that we on this side were putting forward this group of Amendments with the same arguments that were advanced in Committee, and that this was somehow improper and an abuse of the procedure of the House. Quite apart from any reflection upon hon. Members on this side of the House, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was in danger of casting a reflection upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the selection of the Amendments, in that it might have been suggested that there was an error in that Amendments which had been fully debated in Committee were again being selected on Report. Of course, that is not so. The Amendments are not the same, and I hope that the hon Gentleman's accusation against hon. Members on this side may be regarded as out of order.
Let me add my words of welcome to the hon. Gentlemen who have just come into the Chamber to hear this very important debate. We on this side welcome their evident interest in the matter, and we recognise that they are taking a deep interest in what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) called "the rights of the individual". I am delighted to see the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) here, with his warm support for the Minister of State. I am delighted

to know that his solicitude for Darling is as great as it is for deer.
I should like to make a few comments on Amendment No. 14. I appreciate the arguments of the Minister of State on Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, and I cannot go the whole way with my hon. Friends who have suggested that it would be practicable and feasible to put these Amendments into the Bill. But Amendment No. 14 is in a different category. This is the Amendment which asks the Minister to give full reasons—this is very important—for the rejection of an application for an O.D.P. For many years it has been a problem and a source of difficulty—

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. With respect, there is so much noise coming from hon. and right hon. Members opposite that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That is not a point of order. The noise is coming from both sides.

Mr. Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I said that there is noise coming from that side. With respect, it may have been assumed that you were suggesting that I was a liar when I said that there was noise coming from that side.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkin: Hon. Members opposite having come into the Chamber I was charitable enough to assume that they had come to listen to the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should leave hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and get on with the Amendment.

Mr. Jenkin: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if hon. Members opposite were slightly less obtrusive perhaps one would be able to take less notice of them.
The problem of Ministerial decision, which is an inescapable function of Government, is one which has caused grave difficulties and grave problems over many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "The last 13?"] For many years, going back beyond 1951. The difficulty of trying to reconcile reasonable safeguards and protections for the individual citizen with


the necessities of Government in an increasingly complex age gives rise to enormous problems. There was a time when the dangers of increasing the powers of the Executive were not as fully recognised as they are now.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Why only now?

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) will cast his mind back to 1931, he will recall that the Donoughmore Committee was set up to examine Ministers' powers. In the view of many people, that time represented the high water mark of the encroachment of the powers of the Executive upon the life of the individual. After that Committee reported, many things were not done in implementing its recommendations for a number of years but it represented a recognition of the serious problems which this difficulty throws up. [Interruption.] I have some difficulty in developing my argument. [Interruption.] The problem of trying to reconcile Ministerial decisions and the inevitable powers that Ministers must have to implement policies—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope hon. Members will refrain from so many sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for the protection of the Chair.
The difficulty of reconciling the rights of the individual with the powers of Ministers and the Executive was aptly summed up in a short verse by a humorist who coined the lines:
If anything shall seem
Then the Minister may deem
A certificate of demption
Shall provide complete exemption.
I think that we are getting away from legislation of that type and constitutional lawyers and others have performed a notable service in bringing public attention to bear on the desirability of making sure that legislation shall be framed in that form so as not to be beyond challenge, and that it shall take account of the rights of the individual and, so tar as it is possible to do so, reconcile those rights with the legitimate demands of the administrative machine whose decisions shall be open to challenge wherever possible.
It seems to me that office development permits are exactly the sort of thing where this conflict arises in a fairly acute form. It appears to me that the requirement which it is sought to write into the Bill by Amendment No. 14 at any rate goes part of the way in making the control, which I have said that I broadly welcome in principle, acceptable to those who, as it were, feel it at the sharp end, those who submit applications and have them turned down.
12.15 a.m.
It goes a long way to reconcile people to accepting decisions of the Government, even though they may be unpalatable and may be directly against the interests of the applicants, if they at any rate have the satisfaction of knowing the reasons for which their applications were turned down.
Now the Minister of State has sought to justify the rejection of this Amendment on the grounds that the experience the Board of Trade has had the industrial development certificate field has indicated that it is difficult, can be embarrassing and indeed even improper, if the Board of Trade were to give the real reasons, which would have to be included in the "full reasons", for the rejection of the application.
I would have liked to be able to say that in the course of my dealing with I.D.Cs. in industry I have had the experience of an application of mine being rejected. But in every case, I am happy to say, when I was responsible for pursuing these applications, we always got the answer "Yes". Like, in a sense, the young lady who returned from a foreign country and was asked what the Chinese for "Yes" was—it was China she had returned from—and she said she did not know, because she had always said "No."

Hon. Members: Finish it.

Mr. Jenkin: But I am perfectly certain that by the nature of the I.D.C. procedure almost inevitably one has fairly detailed conversations with the officials of the Board of Trade, and I support what the Minister of State has said about their helpfulness and the services they perform in assisting applicants to make the best of their case. But, by the time those conversations have finished, the applicant


will have a pretty clear idea of the reasons why his application has been turned down.
I can understand that in the nature of it, the I.D.C. procedure is not appropriate for "full reasons". Apart from anything else, it is terribly important in the industrial field when there are several applicants—several firms possibly trying to compete for the same market opportunity—that through no leak in the administrative machine should the fact that others have applied get out to each of them. But I wonder if these considerations apply to offices? Inevitably there is competition between office developers, but in a very large number of these cases there would be no possible damage done if the fact that their applications had been put in became known.
In this connection one has only to think of the planning register, which is open to inspection. Different authorities have different rules, but in the authority which I had the honour to be connected with the planning register was open for inspection as soon as a planning application had been before the planning committee and even before it went to the full council.
This office development procedure is very much more akin to planning, although I agree that the factors on which a decision will be made are quite different. Nevertheless it is much more akin to planning than to the I.D.C. procedure, and I should have thought that the particular argument which the Minister of State addressed to the House to justify the reasons for not giving full reasons for the decision is not as valid as he represented it to be. I should be grateful if the Minister would reconsider this, with a view, if he cannot accept the Amendment, at least to the possibility of introducing an Amendment in another place. The desirability—indeed, the necessity—of reconciling those who will be affected by this legislation to its operation is an important factor.
I have the honour to represent a constituency in Greater London and am conscious of the problems of congestion, and so on. We who deal with constituents' problems are much more ready to accept the overriding national case for regional legislation of this sort. It is, perhaps, easy for us, if an application is

turned down, to say that we know the reason for it broadly overall. We know that it is desired not to expand employment in congested areas, we know that the Government are trying to encourage the development of under-developed areas, but many of the people who might apply for office development certificates do not have the advantage of this overall view of the economy and many of them are, perhaps quite understandably, concentrating on their own immediate problem and the hopes and aspirations which they may have in this direction. It would be helpful, and it would go a long way to reconciling them to the operation of this whole procedure, if they could be assured of receiving from the Board of Trade, in the event of their applications being rejected, full reasons why they had been turned down.
For this reason, I am happy to support the Amendment, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, and I hope that the Minister of State will be prepared to give second thoughts to it.

Mr. John Hall: I intervene only shortly, but I have been moved by the obvious enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite for these Amendments, which have been so ably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I was particularly impressed by the enthusiasm that was shown for the recommendations of the Franks Committee, in striking contrast to the Minister, who appeared to think that the recommendations of the Franks Committee did not apply to these Clauses.
I have one brief and serious point on Amendment No. 14. When we debated this matter upstairs, our similar Amendment was lost only by the casting vote of the Chairman.

Mr. Darling: If I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in explaining why the Government carried the Division only by the casting vote of the Chairman, it was because the Opposition refused a pair to my right hon. Friend so that he could carry on with Cabinet business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

Mr. Hall: I am waiting for the noise to die down, because I do not want another hon. Member opposite to get up and complain that he cannot hear. What the Minister of State has just said is contrary to


the information which was given to me. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to allow the Minister of State to give any explanation he likes. I say it not by way of criticism that the hon. Member won the Division only by the casting vote of the Chairman.
In his winding-up speech in the debate, the Minister said that the Franks Committee was concerned with administrative tribunals and not with the purposes of the Bill, and I accept that. Nevertheless, it is essential that we consider the spirit in which the Franks Tribunal approached these problems. I would just quote a few lines quoted to the hon. Gentleman already by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) in his opening remarks on the Amendment. The Franks Committee on page 75 of its Report had this to say:
There is a consensus of opinion that the final letter of decision from or on behalf of the Minister should contain full reasons for the decision. The practice of giving properly reasoned decisions has grown noticeably in recent years. Decision letters sent on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Local Government seem to us to be admirable, but the standard of performance among other Departments is unequal.
It is the spirit of this I am trying to get across to the Minister, and I think he would agree that it would be right for the Board of Trade, as far as possible, to do what we say in Amendment No. 14 that the Board of Trade should do, and that is to give the applicant full reasons for granting or refusing an office development permit. if the Board of Trade—or, for that matter, any Department dealing with applications of this kind—does not give full reasons, it leaves the applicant with a feeling of injustice, with the feeling that his case has not been properly considered—even, perhaps, a feeling that the Board of Trade may not have been fully aware of the case. That may be an entirely unreasonable feeling, but human beings are unreasonable; they are not logical, one gathers. We must make it clear that justice is being done, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates this and would want to make certain that people who are refused applications do know why.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has, I think, answered all these Amendments, including his own support

for Amendment No. 14. He agreed with us that Amendment No. 12 and Amendment No. 13 ought not to be carried, for very good reasons, and he concentrated his support on Amendment No. 14 and particularly to the word "full" in the demand for reasons to be given to the applicant if an application for an office development permit is turned down. It is precisely because we want to help applicants that we cannot accept the proposal that full reasons should be given.
The hon. Member went on to explain that the industrial development certificate procedure works very well indeed. In practically every case where an I.D.C. is turned down, because of the way in which it is operated—the flexible, constructive and intelligent way it is operated by the Board of Trade—the applicant who has had his application refused knows precisely why it has been refused. in spite of the fact, as the hon. Member himself said, that there may be cases—and it is a minority of cases we are concerned about—where we get a number of applications for a site and the Board has to turn down all but one of them and does not give reasons till the final settlement is fixed up.
The hon. Member himself has a good deal of experience of this, I know, and he will understand the circumstances. We cannot accept this Amendment, because it might happen that we would want some discretion to be held by the Board of Trade. There may be circumstances in which for precisely the same reasons as apply under the I.D.C. procedure we do not want to give, and cannot give, the full reasons at the time, and I repeat that it is precisely for that reason that we cannot accept Amendment No. 14. We are very glad indeed to have the support of the hon. Member for turning down Amendment No. 12 and Amendment No. 13.
I repeat again to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) what I said in Committee, that the Franks Committee was examining administrative tribunals; it was not examining the I.D.C. procedure, because this is not done under the administrative tribunals procedure. We are going to apply to the office development procedure what applies to the I.D.Cs., and, therefore, the Franks Committee's proposals and recommendations in regard to administrative tribunals


have no relevance to what we are here considering. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendment be rejected.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Chanson: I have listened with interest to the whole of this debate, and I am reluctant to withdraw the Amendment, in spite of the arguments adduced by the Minister of State. Nevertheless, as I do not wish to detain the House at this time of night, and in view of the sympathetic consideration which the hon. Gentleman has given to the matter—although his conclusions are somewhat disappointing—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(EXEMPTION BY REFERENCE TO OFFICE FLOOR SPACE.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 24, after "for", to insert:
the replacement (upon the same site as those being replaced) of office premises which were in existence on 5th November 1964, so long as the cubic content of the office premises being replaced is not exceeded by more than one tenth or for".
The Amendment seeks to insert a sentence into this Clause, which grants exemptions to certain developments from the necessity to go through the office development permit procedure. If I might read the first two lines of the subsection leading to the Amendment, the House will see the purpose of it. It says:
Notwithstanding anything in the preceding section, an office development permit shall not be required for"—
and then the Amendment is inserted:
the replacement (upon the same site as those being replaced) of office premises which were in existence on 5th November 1964, so long as the cubic content of the office premises being replaced is not exceeded by more than one tenth …
the purpose of the Amendment is to bring in an obviously proper exemption from the office development permit procedure, and mere replacement of an existing building, plus a certain tolerance, should not require an office development permit.
If I understood his speech correctly, in Committee upstairs the right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that he

wanted power to reduce office accommodation by refusing replacements.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order. I am in some confusion. The Notice Paper refers to Amendment No. 16 being in page 2, line 24, Clause 3. According to my copy of the Bill, Clause 3 is not reached until page 4. I wonder, therefore, whether we can on this occasion proceed with the Amendment, in view of this obscurity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that it is a misprint. It makes no difference.

Mr. Page: I tried not to notice the misprint. The page and the line number were obvious, and I endeavoured to read the Amendment into the Bill at that page and in that line.
The point to which I was referring was the speech of the President of the Board of Trade during the Committee stage when he gave the Committee to understand that he desired power to refuse replacements, and therefore I should have thought the power to reduce office accommodation by refusing replacements. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment, all he is saying, in effect, is that he wishes to take advantage of a chance misfortune in order to reduce office accommodation, because the non-existence of premises which existed on 5th November, 1964, will have come about probably by some disaster such as fire, explosion, or what is called in insurance policies, tempest. I never quite know what that means, but we insure against it, and no doubt it can destroy buildings. The building may well be destroyed by fire and it seems proper that its owner should be entitled without question to restort it to its previous size and in modernising it have the one-tenth tolerance mentioned in the Amendment.
The Amendment refers only to office buildings which were in existence on 5th November, 1964, when the Bill was published. The President of the Board of Trade was under the mistaken idea in Committee that a similar Amendment there referred to much more than that, because he said that
There are already 60 million sq. ft. of pre-war office space in the central area of London alone.
The Amendment does not deal with that at all. I am not dealing with pre-war


office space or bombed sites but with offices which were in existence in November last. It is therefore quite irrelevant to talk, as the right hon. Gentleman did, of there being
… already 25 million to 30 million square feet of additional office building in the pipeline beyond the control of the Bill …
The right hon. Gentleman said,
… the fact that we seek the power of control does not mean that the rebuilding of offices would not be allowed in a great many cases on the site of old offices. All that this does is to give the Board of Trade power in the last resort, where there is a strong case, to refuse an O.D.P … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee D, 4th March, 1965, c. 308–9.]
Therefore, the owner whose premises have been burned down runs the risk of being refused an O.D.P. to replace those premises on the site where they existed in November, 1964.
It is not only in the case of disasters like fire or explosion that this situation may arise. The owner of an office building might quite properly wish to rebuild it to comply with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Until the Town and Country Planning Act, 1963, permission could not be refused for a replacement of that sort without paying compensation for that refusal. In 1963 the one-tenth tolerance was removed, but that was all to do with compensation for being deprived of an established right to use property as office premises.
I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is well acquainted with the law of 1963 and is capable of listening to me with one ear and the Minister with the other, but I trust that he will listen to what I want to say next. In these circumstances of replacing a building it must be reasonable to allow the owner to put back what was there before, and with some tolerance, if he is modernising the building. The tolerance is only one-tenth extra. If the President of the Board of Trade had said previously, "But of course we will always grant office development permits in these cases", we should not be so concerned, but that is not what he said. In Committee he gave us clearly to understand that he wanted the power to refuse permission to replace, and he said he wanted it because if one replaces an existing old building by a modern building of the

same cubic capacity, or with a tolerance of 10 per cent. increase, it meant a 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. increase in employment when it was rebuilt. This must be an exaggeration.
I cannot imagine that merely rebuilding to the same cubic capacity will provide that amount of increase in employment. Certainly it is not an argument for depriving the owner of his right to rebuild his previous office building. I hope that on this occasion the Government will not force the owner to go through all the red tape of the office development permit procedure, with the risk of being turned down and told that he cannot rebuild, being left with a derelict site for seven years without any compensation for it. This is a deliberate confiscation of the rights of ownership of property.
If the owner were to be given compensation for not being allowed to rebuild on a derelict site there might be some justice in the matter, but in this case he runs the risk of being forbidden to rebuild his office premises, which may have been burnt down by fire, for the period during which the Measure operates.

Mr. MacColl: There is not really anything new that I can say about this matter, because it was fully explored in Committee, and the hon. Member has not added anything to what was said then. The process of the argument is very simple, although the results are a little complicated. The point is that if we start with office space in an existing office building and then replace it with modern methods, we have not only the increased tolerance of 10 per cent. under the Amendment but an increase in employment in the building, owing to those modern methods, which amounts to more than the increase in the total size of the building. There is a double increase.
The hon. Member said that he thought that the figure of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. resulting from a 10 per cent. increase was very much exaggerated. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has shown his usual care and moderation of statement, because the last Government, in their White Paper Cmnd. 1952, fixed it at 40 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman allowed 10 per cent.


tolerance the other way, and said that it might not be as much as 40 per cent.
These figures are not figures invented by this Government. They are figures used by the last Government, and they were the justification for that Government's introducing the 1963 Act which, as the hon. Member says, altered the whole basis of the Third Schedule of the 1962 Act. The reason for this was that it had been proved that the operating of the old Third Schedule, which the hon. Member wants to exempt, was driving a coach and horses through the whole business of trying to keep down office development.
The reason why my right hon. Friend referred to 60 million sq. ft. of pre-war office space was nothing to do with war damage; that was the only figure available. That was the base from which we started. Since then a good deal more rebuilding has taken place, and the problem is therefore even greater.
12.45 a.m.
That is not to say that, if one insists, replacement of this sort should get office development permission. It does not mean that office development permission will be refused in every case. All it says is that there must be a check and control over replacement if one is to keep down office building. That is well founded in the policy of the White Paper Cmnd. 1952, and it was behind the 1963 Act. Therefore, I could not advise the House that it would be wise to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has addressed his remarks mainly to the 10 per cent. increase. Would he be prepared to accept this principle if there were not that 10 per cent. increase? Is he prepared to accept the principle that the owner should be allowed to replace exactly the cubic capacity that he had before?

Mr. MacColl: There are two points. There is the point about substituting gross floor space for cubic capacity. The other point is about the 10 per cent. If one had the same cubic capacity, one would have more office space for people to occupy and, therefore, one would get more people. The position is made even worse with the 10 per cent. In order to

ensure that one does not get an increase of employment in a given area of office space, one must have O.D.P.s to control it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 8, to leave out from "section" to "the" in line 10.
We have shown ourselves throughout the Bill very willing to listen to the opinions of hon. Members on both sides of the House and to make Amendments to the Bill accordingly. We are doing so in this case, as hon. Members will have observed. The suggestion was made during the Committee stage that it would be more convenient for both developers and planning authorities if the conception of gross floor space for an office building was substituted for that of net floor space. We undertook to consider that. We did so, and came to the conclusion on the whole that the point was valid and that this would be a more convenient and workable arrangement from everybody's point of view. We have, therefore, introduced the conception of gross floor space into the Bill, and there are a number of consequential Amendments here.
We thought, however, that, if we were doing that, it was fair at the same time to raise the minimum level from 2,500 to 3,000 sq. ft.; otherwise we should have been diminishing the amount of floor space.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. For the purpose of clarification, does the right hon. Gentleman wish to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 18, in line 12, leave out "2,500" and insert "3,000", No. 19, in line 20, leave out "amount of floor space" and insert "number of square feet", and No. 20, line 21, leave out "2,500 square feet" and insert "3,000"

Mr. Jay: I would wish to do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that it would be for the convenience of everybody.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If so, that may be done.

Mr. John Hall: To clarify the position still further, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that it would be for the convenience of


the House if the following Amendments were also considered at the same time:

Amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 35, leave out "2,500" and insert "3,000".

Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment No. 29, in Clause 7, page 9, line 3, at end insert "office".

Amendment No. 30, in line 18, leave out from "section" to "the" in line 19.

Amendment No. 31, in line 21, leave out "2,500" and insert "3,000".

Amendment No. 32, in line 24, leave out "amount of floor space" and insert "number of square feet".

Amendment No. 47, in Clause 13, page 15, line 40, at end insert:
(3) In this Part of this Act "office floor space" means gross floor space comprised in office premises; and for the purposes of this Part of this Act the amount of any such space shall be ascertained by external measurement of that space, whether the office premises in question are or are to be bounded (wholly or partly) by external walls of a building or not.

Mr. Jay: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any case, they are consequential. It would probably be more convenient to take them in this group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is so, that may be done.

Mr. Jay: I think that we are all being helpful over this.
It would have reduced the minimum if we had altered the definition from net floor space to gross floor space and left the figure at 2,500 sq. ft. We have therefore raised it to 3,000 sq. ft. I am advised that the result will be almost the same. In some cases, there will probably be a net increase in the floor space which does not require an O.D.P. as a result of the change, but it will be, if not negligible, at any rate very small. I think, therefore, that everybody will be in favour of this change, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Hall: We welcome the Amendments not so much because of the change to external measurements, on which we had differing views, but because we have looked at the calculations very carefully and have come to the conclusion that they result in a slight net gain over and above the 2,500 sq. ft. previously allowed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 8, leave out from "section" to "the" in line 10.

In line 12, leave out "2,500" and insert "3,000".

In line 20, leave out "amount of floor space" and insert "number of square feet".

In line 21, leave out "2,500 square feet" and insert "3,000".—[Mr. Jay.]

Clause 3.—(RETROSPECTIVE CONTROL IN METROPOLITAN REGION.)

Mr. Peter Emery: I beg to move, Amendment No. 21, in page 5, line 12, at the end to insert "or
(c) a person, carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of the execution of building operations or of building operations and engineering operations, has before the date on which this Act is passed commenced building works (including the demolition of existing structures) on the land, or part of the land, in respect of which the planning permission was granted for the erection thereon of such a building, or the making of such an extension, in accordance with that planning permission, and had before 5th November 1964 determined that the office premises to be created by such development would be occupied, wholly or mainly, by that person in connection with such business.
Although a long Amendment, this deals with a small point which I feel the Government want to clarify. The Government would wish to cover by the Bill the small number of people affected. At this late hour I will not go into the background, but certain regulations permit a person to carry on with a development if certain things had been done by 5th November, 1964, when the announcement was made by the First Secretary. Where persons are doing development themselves and would not normally be expected to be in contract with themselves, they should be able to follow the same procedure as that announced by the First Secretary.
We did not deal with this section of people in Committee. I admit that it is a small section, but we did not consider the point at all. As the Government have no desire to leave such a case out, I hope that they will accept the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] We are attempting to make as much progress as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It would be interesting if those hon. Members below the Gangway who have just


returned to the Chamber would have a few words with their own Front Bench, because they are not following the advice which is being quickly passed back to them. It is important that Clauses of the Bill which affect the business of ordinary people should be fairly and properly considered. This point was not raised in Committee and had escaped the notice of the Government. I hope that they will consider the Amendment in the spirit in which I have moved it and see whether something can be done to meet this very small section of cases which arises if we do not close this loophole.

Mr. Jay: I see what the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) is trying to achieve by the Amendment. I think that he has in mind the case of a building contractor who intends to build new offices for his own business and who cannot, of course, enter into a contract with himself to do so. I see the difficulty, but the solution proposed by the Amendment goes too far and would give a wider exemption to a self-builder, to call him that, than would be given to an ordinary developer under the Bill who had made contracts.
Under the Amendment the self-builder would merely have to have begun building before the passing of the Bill to escape the control, whereas the ordinary developer under the Bill must at least have had a contract before 5th November. Further, under the Amendment, demolition would count as building operations and therefore the self-builder would be able to claim exemption from getting a permit if he indulged in some demolition during the course of the passing of the Bill. That would not be so for the ordinary developer. We cannot accept the Amendment, which would place this type of builder in a much more favourable, and a different, position from everybody else under the Bill.
What we can do is to offer, here and now, that we will, where these cases occur, take into account any commitment to actual building operations which existed in such cases before 5th November—this would correspond with a contract entered into before 5th November—when we consider the application for a permit on its merits in the case of a builder of this type. If we do that we will, I think,

meet most of the substance of what the hon. Gentleman proposes, and that I am very willing to do.

Mr. Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those assurances. He will realise the difficulties in which one finds oneself when trying to define a person who enters into a contract with himself. That is exactly the position of a person who is developing on his own land—[Interruption]—and is his own building contractor. It was to get this matter considered by the House that the Amendment was worded in the way it appears. I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for the assurances he has given—[Interruption]—and I regret that we have not been assisted by his hon. Friends behind him. I am sure that his assurances will meet a number of the complaints which have been lodged with US.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Emery: I did, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are in a rather surprising position. The Minister gave certain assurances, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite have been paying so little attention to what has been going on that they are attempting to frustrate the general speed of progress. [Interruption.] I think it only right that I should make that comment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot now withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 5, line 35, leave out "2,500" and insert "3,000."

In page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Jay.]

Clause 6.—(LIMITATIONS OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.)

1.0 a.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 25, to leave out "limitations" and to insert:
restrictions on the making of an application for planning permission for that development".


It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if with this Amendrnent we were to take Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.

Mr. MacColl: These Amendments deal with matters raised in the Standing Committee. The main point about this Clause is that it outlines the constitution of an office development permit. The present draft of the Bill distinguishes between limitations and conditions. Limitations are things placed on the application for an office development permit, and conditions are things that are placed in a planning permission. There was a certain amount of confusion in Committee, and in the Amendment I have moved we seek to substitute for the word "limitations" the words in the Notice Paper, so as to make it clear that these are events which take place before the planning permission is given. It also makes clear that what we mean by "restrictions" is restrictions on the making of the application for planning permission. We do not have in mind any restrictions on the grant of planning permission.
Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 28 are consequential on No. 24.
By Amendment No. 26 we seek to leave out the words "necessary or expedient" and to substitute for them
appropriate in the exercise of their discretion as mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act".
This point also arose in the Committee, where there were suggestions that there was some sinister meaning to be attached to the words "necessary or expedient"; and that they might mean a very wide discretion being exercised in an improper manner. It was also suggested that the term also left at large any comparison with Clause 1. We therefore suggest that there should be a specific linking with Clause 1(4). These points are all designed to make the Bill more understandable, and more in line with what hon. Members were asking for in Committee.

Mr. John Hall: As the hon. Member has said, there was some discussion in Committee, and not a little confusion, about the use of the words "limitations" and "restrictions". The discussion arose

on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), and I am sure that he would welcome these Amendments. I think, however, that he might be disappointed to find that the words "or otherwise" in line 28, to which he also took exception, have not been deleted by the Minister. Nevertheless, one must be content with small mercies, and we welcome these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 26, leave out from "whom" to "may" in line 27 and insert "such an application".

In line 28, leave out "necessary or expedient" and insert
appropriate in the exercise of their discretion as mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act".
In line 30, leave out "limitations" and insert "restrictions".

In line 32, leave out "otherwise than within those limitations" and insert
which does not comply with those restrictions ".—[Mr. MacColl.]

Clause 7.—(PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE NO OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 3, at end insert "office".

In line 18, leave out from "section" to "the" in line 19.

In line 21, leave out "2,500" and insert "3,000".

In line 24, leave out "amount of floor space" and insert "number of square feet".—[Mr. Jay.]

Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED OR IMPLIED IN PURSUANCE OF S. 6 OR S. 7.)

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 9, line 44, at the end to insert:
(3) Where planning permission is granted subject to a condition to which this section applies, and it appears to the authority granting the permission that the condition could have been imposed apart from the provisions of this Part of this Act, and would have been imposed if this Part of this Act had not been enacted, the decision granting the permission may include a certificate to that effect; and, where such a certificate is included in a decision of the local planning authority—

(a) the Minister shall not be required to entertain an appeal from the decision in so far as it includes the certificate, but


(b) subject to the preceding paragraph, section 23 of the Act of 1962 shall have effect in relation to the certificate as it has effect in relation to any other part of the decision.

This is substantially a drafting Amendment, because it moves from Clause 15 to Clause 8 a provision requiring a planning authority to certify that an office development permission or a condition made under Clause 7 is not one which sprang directly out of the office development permit but is one which the planning authority would have mad eonning authority would have made on planning grounds.

Mr. Peter Emery: I think this is an improvement. We were slightly concerned about a similar point to this in Committee, and I think that the rearrangement of this matter of the planning permission granted
subject to the condition to which this section applies".
makes more sense if it is placed in Clause 8. We welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit so to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(ENFORCEMENT NOTICES RE- LATING TO LAND IN GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, at the end to insert:
(6) In relation to any enforcement notice to which this section applies, the grounds on which an appeal may be brought under section 46 of the Act of 1962 shall not include those specified in paragraph (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of that section, but shall include the grounds specified in the Schedule (Special grounds of appeal against the enforcement notices under section 9) to this Act; and the grounds specified in that Schedule shall be deemed to be included among those mentioned in section 177 (1) of that Act (which relates to the validity of enforcement notices).
Perhaps I may also refer to the new Schedule—"Special Grounds of Appeal against Enforcement Notices under Section 9". This Amendment and the new Schedule relate to the right of appeal against an enforcement notice which is provided for under Clause 9. That Clause provides that an enforcement notice relating to new office building in Greater London, served on the grounds that the planning permission had been put into suspense by virtue of Clause 3 (5), may require that building operations should be discontinued forthwith,

instead of or in addition to any other step which may require to be taken.
The right of appeal against any enforcement notice to which this Clause applies is preserved by subsection (5) and this allows an appeal within the period specified in that notice, which must be not less than 28 days from the time when the notice is served.
This Amendment and the proposed new Schedule seek to provide special grounds of appeal against a Clause 9 enforcement notice of this kind, and the reason is that some of the grounds of appeal provided for in Section 46 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, are not appropriate in this context. The new Schedule sets out the special grounds of appeal which, in our view, are appropriate in the case of Clause 9 enforcement notices. These are set out—I will not read them—in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the new Schedule.
It seemed to us right to make perfectly clear and beyond doubt what the grounds of appeal may be in the case of an enforcement notice of this kind, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment and the new Schedule.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Schedule will be moved at its appropriate place.

Mr. Graham Page: I must say that I am highly suspicious of this Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade explained it in such a plausible way that one thought there could be no harm at all in it, but one must remember that the only way of appealing against an office development permit decision is by way of inviting an enforcement notice. This is the only way by which one can question whether or not the Board of Trade is right in law—whether or not it is right on the facts—and this is an unfortunate position under the whole Bill. If we had had a straightforward form of appeal it would have been much better, because the applicant now has to commit an illegal act in order to tempt a local authority to serve him with an enforcement notice, and then to appeal against that enforcement notice.
I am highly suspicious when he is deprived of any of his rights of appeal on an enforcement notice. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had set out the appropriate grounds


of appeal in the new Schedule, but at the same time he said that the owner has been deprived of his rights of appeal under Section 46 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. Looking at Section 46, I see that there are about seven grounds of appeal, some of which seem very appropriate to the need for allowing the owner to question the decision on an office development permit. For example, subsection 1(d) says:
…that what is assumed in the enforcement notice to be development did not constitute or involve development.
Is the owner to be deprived of putting forward that ground of appeal, when he has gone ahead with his development on the basis that it is not a development, but when the local authority says that it is and the Board of Trade says that it is? Under those circumstances he says, "I must test the decision by inviting an enforcement notice and I must put forward this appeal." The other grounds of appeal under this Section are

"(a) that planning permission ought to be granted for the development to which the enforcement notice relates;
(b) that planning permission has been granted for that development:
(c) that no planning permission was required…"

and so on. These seem to me to be very relevant, but in their place we are given specific and narrow grounds in the Schedule.
If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, these grounds in the Section and the Schedule apply only to cases in Greater London. I do not know whether they will come into operation at all if an order is made extending the Bill to another part of the country, but I do not think so. We are dealing only with what may happen when this Bill comes into effect, and dealing with the retrospective nature of the Bill.
Even so, I cannot really see the need for restricting the owner's right of appeal. The fact that the owner has this possibility of questioning the decision of the Beard of Trade has been my sort of sheet anchor in this Bill. It is an inefficient way of doing it, but at least he can do it by inviting an enforcement notice and appealing against it. I think we ought to have a greater assurance that nothing is really being taken away from the owner by this Schedule, in

regard to the right that he has to appeal against the enforcement notice.

Mr. Jay: By leave of the House, and in order to help the hon. Gentleman, I am very glad to say a further word. He is quite within his rights, if I may say so, in seeking to preserve the proper entitlement of an applicant in this case to appeal. I think that the situation, however, is more satisfactory than the hon. Gentleman supposes.
1.15 a.m.
It is true, as he said, that these Amendments rule out certain grounds of appeal which existed under Section 46(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, but only three such grounds. These are, first, that planning permission ought to be granted for the development to which the enforcement notice relates; secondly, that planning permission has been granted for that development; and, thirdly, that no planning permission was required in respect of that development or that the conditions or limitations in respect of which planning permission for that development was granted have been complied with.
These grounds are not really relevant in the case of an enforcement notice under Clause 9, which is served on the ground that planning permission has been granted but has been put into suspense by Clause 3(5). If the hon. Member reflects on the fact that what the Bill is doing in such cases is to put these planning permissions into suspense, he will see that these grounds of appeal, which are the only ones ruled out, would not really be relevant or appropriate in these cases.
We are not taking away any right or ground of appeal but are merely altering them in such a way that they will be more appropriate and fully relevant to cases which could arise under Clause 9.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, at end to insert:
(8) Where an enforcement notice to which this section applies has been served, and either of the following events occurs, that is to say—

(a) an office development permit is issued in respect of the development to which the notice relates, or
(b) planning permission for any development of the land to which the notice relates


is granted authorising (either unconditionally or subject to conditions) the operations to which the notice relates to be continued,

the enforcement notice shall not have effect in so far as it would prevent or restrict the doing of anything after that event occurs.
This Amendment deals with another problem arising from Clause 9, where an enforcement notice has been served and an order has been made to stop the operation forthwith. The problem then arises as to how one gets it started again if that should be necessary. It may be that often development permission may be given either for the whole of the operation or for a modified form or that planning permission may be given for some other use of the land.
In order to make it clear that there is not a clash between planning permission and the O.B.D. and the "stop" order which is in existence, this Amendment provides a means of ensuring that it should no longer have effect in so far as it is necessary for the carrying out of the permit or planning permission.

Mr. Graham Page: This is an admirable Amendment. I think it was necessary and we are very grateful for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(POWER TO REQUIRE IN FORMATION AS TO BUILDING CON- TRACTS.)

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, to insert:
and who is the owner of the land".
I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will say precisely the same thing about this Amendment as he did about the last one. This is, in effect, consequential on the Government Amendment in Clause 13(1)—which was welcomed by hon. Members opposite in Committee—the definition of a building contract, leaving out the reference to the owner of the land as a party to the contract.
We recognised by that Amendment that developers may enter into a building contract before they have become the owners of the land. Having made this alteration in the definition of a building contract, however, the Board of Trade would not necessarily be able to find out who is the owner of the land just by calling for information and documents

under Clause 10 about the existence of a building contract.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in these circumstances, would think that the Board of Trade ought to find out who is the owner of the land even though we are carrying out the terms of the Amendment which we put down to Clause 13. Of course, we could have found out if the definition of the building contract had remained in the original form. It is, therefore, desirable specifically to empower the Board of Trade to call for information and documents to enable it to ascertain who is the owner of the land. I feel sure that in the interests of tidy administration the hon. Member for Crosby will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am delighted that I at this time can be nearly as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). We welcome this Amendment. It is in fact only an extension of an Amendment which we had in Committee. It is a matter on which both the Government and the Opposition had tabled Amendments. We are pleased that it has been dealt with in this manner.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, at the end to insert:
(2) A notice under this section may require the information to which it relates to be furnished within such time as may be specified in the notice, and may require the documents to which it relates to be produced at such time and place as may be so specified.
Here again, this Amendment carries out an undertaking that was given in Committee. If hon. Members want to look up the reference, it is in cols. 571–2 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The undertaking was to move an Amendment on Report to enable a time limit to be imposed for the production of documents and information in compliance with a notice served under this Clause. This is to enable the Board of Trade to ascertain whether a building contract was made before 5th November.
The Amendment goes further than the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), in that it enables the Board to specify in the notice the time and place in which the documents shall be produced, as well


as a time limit for producing the information. We have not adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Chester that the time limit should be 28 days. We think it would be more effective to leave the length of the specified period for producing information and documents to the Board's discretion. This will give us a free hand to fix a time limit which appears to be reasonable in the circumstances of each case, and to help the applicants as best we can. I am sure that this Amendment, which carries out a promise we gave in Committee, will. be enthusiastically accepted by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery).

Mr. Peter Emery: Again, we thank the Government for proposing an Amendment to fulfil an undertaking they gave in Committee.
I do not want to spoil it, but there is just one query I should like to make about this. We suggested in our own Amendment that the period should be 28 days. This was in order to comply with certain other legislation which we discussed at that time. But I understand the argument put forward by the Government that perhaps 28 days is a little short, and is unreasonable. I wonder whether the words "furnished within such time" in the Amendment could be interpreted as more limiting, and whether the words should not be "within such reasonable time."
It may be purely a drafting point, and that is why I ask the question, but if it is not perhaps the Minister of State would have a look at it and see whether at a later stage the words "reasonable time" would not better meet both our wishes.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) is not being pedantic about this. It is a point which should be looked at, and we will certainly look at it.

Mr. Emery: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(MEANING OF "OFFICE PREMISES".)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if with the next Amendment, No. 38, we take also the following Amendments:
No. 39: in page 14, line 9, at end insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not include lifts".
No. 40, in line 9, at end insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not includes fire escapes".
No. 41, in line 9, at end insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not include storage, canteens, ingress to and egress from office premises".
No. 42, in line 9, at end insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not include the operation of computers".
No. 43, line 9, at end insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not include lavatories".
No. 44, in line 9 at end insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not include stairs and lift shafts".
No. 45, in line 9, at end insert:
(2) In this section, office premises shall not include premises whose sole or principal use is as a garage.

Mr. Costain: I am in a little difficulty, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These are the Amendments on which we talked about net and gross areas. In view of the way that the President of the Board of Trade has met us concerning gross measurements, I should be happy not to move my Amendments, Nos. 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45. I cannot, however, speak for my hon. Friends concerning the remainder of this group of Amendments. For the reason I have given, I will not move my Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If no hon. Member proposes to move the Amendments, they will fall.

Mr. Wise: I wish briefly to move Amendment No. 43, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the purpose of elucidation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The only one that the hon. Member can move is No. 38.

Mr. Wise: I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 14, line 9, at the end, to insert:
but in this section 'office premises' shall not include store rooms".
I move the Amendment merely to get from the Government an understanding of their reading of the position concerning the definition of "office premises". The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that in Committee he made a


brave effort to extend the definition of "office premises" by moving an Amendment to insert a rather omnibus proviso at the end:
(without prejudice to the generality of any reference to use as an office)",
which, as far as I can make out, included pretty well everything, of all kinds. That Amendment was defeated in Committee.
On that occasion, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
… it is necessary to have some idea about what is meant by 'office purposes'. Therefore, if hon. Members turn to subsection (5) they will see the definition of 'office purposes'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 23rd March, 1965; c. 573.]
Subsection (5) is clear and succinct. It states:
In this section 'office purposes' includes the purposes of administration, clerical work, handling money, telephone and telegraph operating and the operation of computers".
That is right and we are prepared to accept that as it is in the Bill. It appears, however, that nearly all this group of Amendments which we are discussing come outside the definition of subsection (5), which specifically says nothing about fire escapes, lavatories or anything of that kind.
May we assume that the definition of "office premises" is strictly that given in subsection (5) and nothing else, and that an office development permit will not be needed for these extra things covered by the Amendments? I should very much like to have the Minister's opinion on this.

Mr. Darling: If I have the point aright—and I am not sure whether I have—the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) is asking whether we have made proper provision for lavatories, store rooms, and so on, in the definition in subsection (5) and whether we are sticking to that definition.

Mr. Wise: What I want to know is this. Are all these things on which Amendments have been put down automatically excluded under the Bill as it stands? By my reading of the Bill, they are excluded. Therefore, we need not move the Amendments.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Darling: They are not excluded. The gross overall figure of 3,000 sq. ft. includes lavatories, and so on. We argued

this point at great length in Committee, as the hon. Member will remember, when we started to do some arithmetic as well. I would not like to go over that again, except to say that what we were concerned about was not at that stage the actual size of the office to be permitted to be developed without a development permit, but the number of workers who could be employed in it. We said that the number was 20 to 25. We said that with any number below that the building or extension could go ahead. In calculating the size of the office we had in mind the safety and welfare legislation, and that under the 1963 Act approximately 1,250 sq. ft. of space would be required for between 20 and 25 people. We dealt with this by including store rooms and all the rest. Now we are going a stage further and are giving 3,000 sq. ft., but keeping the number of workers the same. Therefore, things are improving.

Mr. Peter Emery: Although the Government have not given way on the definitions in the Bill they have met us on the point of the exact measurements, which are rising from 2,500 sq. ft. inner to 3,000 sq. ft. outer measurements. I think that deals fairly with most of the Amendments in this group.
However, the Government leave me a little unhappy over Amendment No. 42 and the computers. We shall not pursue the matter at length now, but I would urge the Government to have another look at this and to have a word with the Minister of Technology about it before the Bill reaches another place. When we are trying to encourage the computer industry and technology it really would be more sensible of the Government to take computers out of this. Computers were not in the initial legislation. Without any more ado I would ask the Government to have another look at that, and meantime I think it would be just as well if my hon. Friend would not press this Amendment.

Mr. Wise: I sympathise with whoever has to calculate the square footage of an outside fire escape, and with that sentiment I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 14, line 38, leave out "section 7 (2)" and insert:
sections 7(2) and (Purchase notices)".—[Mr. Darling.]

Clause 13.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 40, at end insert:
(3) In this Part of this Act "office floor space" means gross floor space comprised in office premises; and for the purposes of this Part of this Act the amount of any such space shall be ascertained by external measurement of that space, whether the office premises in question are or are to be bounded (wholly or partly) by external walls of a building or not.—[Mr. Jay.]

Clause 15.—(TEMPORARY OPERATION OF PART I.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
the condition is the subject of a certificate under section 8(3) of this Act".—[Mr. Darling.]

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, Amendment No. 51, in page 17, line 11, at the end to insert:
(4) An enforcement notice to which section 9 of this Act applies shall not operate so as to prevent or restrict the doing of anything after the end of that period.
This Amendment is closely linked with the Amendment to Clause 9, dealing with the question of how to get started again after there has been a stop order. It deals with the problem of what happens to an enforcement notice after the Bill expires, and it provides that the enforcement notice shall not operate so as to prevent or restrict the doing of anything at the end of the period.

Mr. Graham Page: I welcome this Amendment, just as I welcomed the previous one.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: In page 17, line 11 at end insert:
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, subsection (3) of section (Purchase notices) of this Act shall not cease to have effect at the end of that period; and in relation to any land which, immediately before the end of that peiod, is land within an area to which this Part of this Act applies, any reference in that subsection to the date on which the land ceases to be within such an area shall be construed as a reference to the end of that period.
In line 12 leave out from "the" to second "of" and insert "preceding provisions".—[Mr. Darling.]

Clause 20.—(PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS.)

Mr. Darling: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 21, line 37, at the end to insert:
(3) Any order under this Act which designates an area for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which the order is made (but without prejudice to anything previously done under the order or to the making of a new order) unless before the end of that period the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) In reckoning any period for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
It might be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 59, in line 39, after "Act", insert
other than any such order as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section".
The purpose of the Amendment is to carry out an undertaking that we gave in Committee—a most important undertaking—and I do not think that I need to spell it out in great detail. We were asked whether we would accept the affirmative procedure for dealing with orders that might be made designating new areas for the purpose of office control under the Bill. We pointed out the difficulty of accepting the affirmative procedure unless we could put a stop on the operation, so that there would be no forestalling.
I think that the undertaking which we gave in Committee was accepted, and we have proceeded to carry it out. I am sure that it will be greatly welcomed, particularly by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who fought us so hard on this matter, and we were very glad to give way to him.

Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for carrying out the undertaking which he gave in Committee. I am sorry that he could not go all the way with the Amendment that we had in Committee, and in particular could not see fit to give us the affirmative Resolution in the case of orders made under Clause 12(6). Those are orders made where a definition which is laid down in the Bill is to be altered. I think that as a matter of precedent


it is bad to deal with these orders by the negative procedure.
I think that when a power is given by order to alter a Statute it ought to be by affirmative Resolution, but I am grateful for the way in which the Government have dealt with our request that an order under Clause 1 extending this Bill to other areas should be by affirmative Resolution within 28 days.
This gives the House something more than we asked for in our original Amendment in Committee. If there is an affirmative Resolution in the form that a draft must be laid, or if an order must receive an affirmative Resolution, the Government may lay it one day and bring the Resolution in the next day so that the Opposition do not necessarily then have time to communicate with those outside the House. The vitally important thing when an order is made under Clause 1 is that we in the House should have the opportunity of getting local opinion from the areas affected. The Government Amendment will give us 28 days, which is short enough, but we are assured of that time, whereas we would not have been so assured if my Amendment had been accepted in Committee. I am therefore grateful for the Government Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 39, after "Act", insert:
other than any such order as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section".—[Mr. Darling.]

New Schedule.—(SPECIAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICES UNDER SECTION 9.)

1. That the development to which the enforcement notice relates does not consist of or include the erection on land in Greater London of a building containing office premises, or of the extension of a building on land in Greater London by the addition of office premises.

2. That a building was erected before 5th November, 1964, or (as the case may be) the building in question was before that date extended, in accordance with planning permission for the development to which the enforcement notice relates.

3. That a building contract was made before that date which specifically related to the land, or part of the land, in respect of which planning permission was granted for the development to which the enforcement notice relates and

which provided for the erection thereon of such a building as is mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Schedule, or for the making of such an extension as is mentioned in that paragraph, in accordance with that planning permission.

4. That the office floor space to be created by the development to which the enforcement notice relates does not exceed 3,000 square feet.

5. That an industrial development certificate was required for development consisting of or including the development to which the enforcement notice relates and that such a certificate was issued in respect of it by the Board of Trade.—[Mr. Darling.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule.—(METROPOLITAN REGION OUT SIDE GREATER LONDON.)

Mr. Johnson Smith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 63, in page 24, line 2, to leave out "districts" and insert "district".
I understand that it will be convenient to the House also to take Amendment No. 64, in line 2, leave out "Cuckfield and East Grinstead".
I appreciate that the moment for which we have been waiting has almost arrived, the second of these being the penultimate Amendment if my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) wishes to move the last Amendment before Third Reading.
The points which I wish to raise have been put to me by my constituents. They are worthy of consideration by the House. I hope that the Government will see their way to grant the requests set out in the Amendments. By excluding the urban district councils of East Grinstead and Cuckfield there is hope that the areas of those two councils will be able to develop in the way they wish. They would be able to build offices and provide the light industries which they think necessary. In an area which is fast-growing people are anxious that there should be diversity of employment and proper employment opportunities for the rising generation. The county council of East Sussex and the urban district council of East Grinstead have looked at the estimates of growth in that part of England as made in the South East Study. They consider them to be too low in the light of known factors, such as planning permissions which are still to be exercised.
1.45 a.m.
Developments already been approved by the urban district council would result in a population increase from about 15,000 in 1961 to 20,000 in 1968. That is already in hand. It has already looked further ahead, because it has planned a sewerage capacity for about 40,000 people in the urban district of East Grinstead. One would imagine that there is to be a great deal of residential development to be undertaken in that area. Further, East Grinstead, as an area, has been represented to the Location of Offices Bureau as suitable for office location, and it is interesting to note that inquiries of a substantial nature have been made to the council. It is felt that East Grinstead is on a par with Tunbridge Wells, which was considered as a suitable area for office development.
The council is convinced that an essential planning factor in employment in this district is the provision of office development, land for which is available in the town centre. One site alone would provide office space of roughly 200,000 square feet, and there are other areas which it thinks would be suitable for designation for office development. The council considers not only the job aspect to be important; there is also the question of transportation in the area. It is argued that if office development were allowed to take place in the near future it would considerably ease congestion on the road from East Grinstead to London, and also help to reduce congestion on the railway from East Grinstead to London. Increased congestion has also arisen from the fact that there is a considerable office development in East Croydon.
So much for the arguments adduced by the East Grinstead Urban District Council for exclusion from the terms of the Bill. The other urban district council which would also like to be excluded is Cuckfield, especially as the centre of that area is the town of Haywards Heath. One has only to mention that town, or read about it, and to conjure up a vision of the vast and growing army of commuters who struggle into the trains, packed hike sardines, to realise that there is a serious problem for them. This problem is likely to grow worse. The

population of the area is now about 21,000, and it is planned to increase it to about 28,000, and probably more.
In Haywards Heath there are two estates in which light industry has been developed. It has been put to me that they would like to continue with this development in light industry, and also to provide offices for that population. The light industry which has been developed is useful to the country. One of the firms there designed the world speed record holder, "Bluebird", and there is a small firm which makes radio and television parts which wants to expand and a firm which has developed a process of colour printing, which understand is very advanced, and which has been given permission to re-establish itself on the trading estate at Haywards Heath.
It seems not unreasonable that in this area, like East Grinstead, the authorities should want to relieve the congestion, arising from the fact that so many people are travelling to London, by providing job opportunities in the area. I mentioned by way of a small digression that there was a further concern. When it wished to deal with the non-conforming industrial user it was concerned whether or not it would be allowed to re-establish such companies on its estates.
Finally, to support both urban district councils there is the East Sussex County Council, which is, of course, the major planning authority for the area. It should be noted that it has been clear all the way through that both East Grinstead and the urban district of Cuckfield are areas where office development ought to be allowed, and a certain amount of light industrial development, too. One thing of which those areas are conscious—it finds emphasis even at this late hour—of is that, although this area has traditionally been a rural area and still vast areas of East Sussex contain some of the most peaceful and beautiful parts of England, nevertheless it is an area where the population is drifting away from the countryside into these towns, and it is likely that the drift will be accelerated in the light of the agricultural Price Review because much of the farming is dairy farming and the tendency is for people to get out of dairy farming and take other job opportunities in the


towns. In other words, with the decline in the population which is working on the land, there is a need for diversity of employment, and there is a growing need on the part of the increasing population in the area—young families of children —for job opportunities for the young.
It is thought wrong that the Bill does not take account of this need and—this is a very important point—that it somehow does not seem geared to harmonise with the policy of the local authorities and planning authorities. What is feared is that no development whatever will be allowed. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister of State to allay, if not altogether remove, these fears.
Finally, in case it is thought that I have been too parochial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When the Local Employment Act was going through the House, some hon. Members opposite spoke up well for their constituents, and that is what I am doing tonight. There are other authorities which have come to conclusions broadly similar to those which I have already mentioned. The South East Study refers to commuting. Paragraph 14 on page 43 states:
Any prediction of the future commuting rate is hazardous.
It mentions certain figures, and comes to this conclusion:
This means that we must expect 200,000 more commuters, over and above the number travelling to central London in 1961; though not all of them will travel at the most congested hours. There may well be further heavy demands after 1971. But the pattern of transport needs after that date will depend very much on the success enjoyed by the policy of office decentralisation.
I should have thought that that very much strengthened the arguments of the urban district councils to which I have referred because they note that there is already a very heavy strain on the commuting resources of British Railways.
Commenting on the development of offices in the Metropolitan Region, on the increase in the population and on the strain on local services from attracting more employment opportunities there, the South-East Study states in paragraph 31 on page 64:
In these circumstances. there are strong arguments for keeping further planned expansion schemes out of this area. In practice, this is not likely to be possible. The difficulty of finding enough centres with the advantages

necessary to support strong and rapid growth makes it necessary to look to a handful of places in the outer metropolitan region if enough viable schemes are to be got going. But it may be possible to confine these to the outer part of the area".
I think that those were wise words which underline the arguments produced by the urban district councils which exist in the outer Metropolitan Region.
I will quote one other authority—the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning. I will quote from the Bulletin of 25th November last year. I quote from page 34:
This conference agreed that while some increase in daily commuting to the conurbation is to be expected and is provided for in the Development Plans, in general, further provisions outside the conurbation should be for locally matching growth of population and employment.
This is the argument of the two urban district councils. They know that their population is increasing. This means that there will be a growing need of jobs for young people. They also know that unless further provision is made in the areas these young people will have to commute on lines which are already over-congested. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will meet some of these arguments and in so doing allay the fears of my constituents. If he can do so, I hope that he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I am sure that a great deal that was said by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) about East Grinstead and Cuckfield is wholly true and justified, but I do not think that it makes his case for keeping these areas out of the Schedule.
As I have advised other hon. Members, this is not a Bill to ban all office development in the areas mentioned, but a Bill to restrain and control it; indeed to bring it under some sort of general plan for the whole of the metropolitan region. If we intended to prevent any offices from being built in any of the areas mentioned in the Schedule, I could well sympathise with the hon. Member in advancing all those reasons for excluding East Grinstead, but that is not what we intend to do. It is clear from the South-East Study, and will be even clearer from the revision of the South-East Study now proceeding, that some form of restraint and some form of planning of this sort of development in the whole area is


needed, but in the course of executing that plan and using the powers in the Bill we shall take account of the fact that there are areas outside central London saich require office development to a greater or less degree, in some cases for the reasons which the hon. Member advanced. That will be the spirit in which the Bill will be administered. There will be no absolute ban on office development, and I think that many of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman advanced would certainly be relevant to the method by which these powers are used.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Channon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 66, in page 24, to leave out line 10.
I will be brief in moving the Amendment in view of the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade when replying to the last Amendment. May I say, first, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, how glad I am to see you back in the Chair since we have, in fact, now arrived at Southend? It might be helpful if I begin by quoting a passage from the South-East Study, on page 76 of which we read—and this was referred to in Standing Committee:
In the South-East itself, many of the places proposed for office expansion in this chapter will be very suitable for office dispersal. and have been chosen with this in mind.
A little later it stated:
Of the bigger ones, Southampton. Ipswich, Ncrthampton and Peterborough should be particularly attractive to employers; and among the others Aylesbury, Chelmsford, Hastings. Maidstone, Norwich, Reading and Southend.
I suppose that most of the places mentioned would not come under the provisions of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade is aware—from the views expressed in Committee and today—first about the problems of commuters and secondly about the problem of trying to get offices out of the centre of London.
I congratulate the Location of Offices Bureau for the work it has done. At present there is substantial office space

available in Southend, but the Bill covers seven years and at the end of that time the supply of office space will probably have dried up in that area. When that happens the Government will have to consider how to administer the provisions of the Bill.
I was pleased to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that the Measure would be administered in a flexible way. This is important, because it is always difficult to persuade people to move east of London. Southend is an extreme example of this. Some people believe that it is inconvenient to move their offices east of London. That has been the experience of the Location of Offices Bureau. However, Southend—and this applies to many other towns east of London—is an ideal centre for office expansion, in view of the Borough's excellent means of communications.
This is a probing Amendment. In support of it, I will quote the advice of the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning. That suggested that Southend would be an excellent place for office expansion. Following the publication of the Government White Paper, the Standing Conference issued a pamphlet in which it stated in paragraph 3:
As regards offices outside the conurbation, the Conference decided to recommend member-authorities that in the Metropolitan Green Belt (including proposed extensions) additional offices beyond present commitments should not, in general, be permitted, while beyond. although some new office employment was needed for local population growth, caution on the scale and location of offices was needed for the present.
That is probably sensible advice indeed. The Conference recommended Southend and Ashford as places for major office development, although it pointed out that other towns would be suitable for growth in this respect. It stated:
Southend is already the largest town in the original Conference area outside the conurbation; with its immediate environs it has an urban population of over a quarter of a million, and this population includes a strong office-employee content; it has fast communications by road and rail to the City of London and a busy airport in its hinterland.
Those were some of the reasons which led the Conference to recommend these areas.
I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade will say that when he considers future applications for office


development in Southend he will not take an unnecessarily restrictive view of them, in view of the fact that it is obviously necessary that there will have to be office expansion somewhere in the metropolitan region, and will agree with the recommendations of the Standing Conference on London Regional Planning that Southend is an excellent example of the sort of district in which it should take place. He will, I hope, say that he will bear this sympathetically in mind.

Mr. Jay: I think that what I said to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) applies mutatis mutandis to Southend. There is much force in many of the points which the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has advanced, and in his quotations from the South East Study. I assure him that we will have these in mind, and after the speeches we have had from the hon. Member in the House and in the Standing Committee I feel that there is no danger of Southend being overlooked.

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. John Hall: There is no doubt that we have scrutinised this Bill very thoroughly, and I think that the House will agree that as a consequence it has been improved—although not as much as we on this side of the House would have liked. I said at the conclusion of my Second Reading speech:
We have sympathy with the objective of the Bill, although we believe that the measures which were being taken by the previous Government were beginning to bear fruit. The Bill will have to be explained very much more fully before we are convinced that we should support it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 754.]
We have had very full debate and explanation. I must say that the explana-

tions have been produced largely as a result of our many probing Amendments, both in Committee and today. Some of our Amendments have been accepted, and the Government themselves have put down a number which have resulted from our examination of the Bill in the Standing Committee. We can say that the Committee and the House have played a very useful part in improving the Measure, although I must confess that we have not been very much helped by back benchers opposite either tonight or during our previous sittings.
I quite sincerely express our appreciation to the Ministers who have taken part in our debates for the sympathetic way in which they have treated most of our Amendments, and for the good-humoured way in which they have put up with our sometimes rather lengthy discussions. I also express my appreciation to my hon. Friends who have worked so hard to prepare Amendments which have improved the Bill. To that extent, I welcome the Third Reading.

2.7 a.m.

Mr. Costain: On Second Reading, I said that this Bill was like taking a steam hammer to crack a nut, and produced figures to show that 4 per cent. of the building industry was employed in building offices. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson)—whom I am glad now to see in his place—claimed that 25 per cent. of the building labour force operating in Greater London now and during the past few years has been employed on speculative office building. have made the most extensive inquiries but cannot find any official statistics at all.
When we raised this question in Committee, the Minister of State promised to produce some figures as soon as he could to substantiate that claim. I hope that we may have it substantiated soon, because we feel that there has been a great deal of exaggeration connected with the bringing in of this Measure. That became further obvious during the debate on the Milner Holland Report on 22nd March last, when the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—put forward some remarkable figures.
The hon. Gentleman said:
We further discovered that office building in London alone in 1964 represented 23 per cent. of the whole of the office building in the whole of Britain and that over 10 per cent. of the total building labour force in Britain was employed in the London region building offices in that area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 175.]
If those figures are correct, it means that 110,000 men were building offices in Great Britain, and I challenge the Government to say where they stood—never mind what they have built.
I am glad to have this opportunity to correct two misleading statements which were made in the course of the introduction of the Bill.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. John Biffen: During the Committee stage of the Bill some reference was made to my constituency by the Minister of State and others. I am grateful for the terms in which the hon. Gentleman spoke about the problem which had been raised by a number of local authorities arising from Part II of the Bill concerning industrial development and the possible use of industrial development certificates in areas of rural depopulation such as are characterised along the Welsh border.
None the less there is one point which still worries me in connection with Clause 16. As it stands, and certainly in the terms in which the Minister of State spoke in Committee in column 717, the implication was that the hon. Gentleman believed that there was quite a good case for industrial development of a relatively modest character in Shropshire, and possibly in areas along the border country; but he completely overlooked the point that the development of Dawley New Town has been and will continue to be a powerful magnet for that kind of industrial development, unless the enterprise of local authorities in the Welsh border area is not to be in any way frustrated by the operation of Clause 16.
Therefore, I hope that when the Minister of State replies to this debate my fears will be put at rest.

2.12 a.m.

Sir H. Harrison: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said about some

of his fears. I expressed my fears at an earlier stage about the control that the Minister will have over small businesses in small rural villages in places like East Anglia, the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridge.
We shall watch how the Bill is administered, because we do not want the small enterprising men who have started businesses to be held up for development by lack of space, particularly those in rural areas who serve the local communities and who badly want a good deal of industrial space for machinery and vehicles.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. Darling: The hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) asked me one or two questions earlier, and when I rose to reply I found that he had left the Chamber.

Sir H. Harrison: I apologise, but I was called away urgently to attend to a matter elsewhere.

Mr. Darling: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was talking about local services which, obviously, cannot be taken away from their localities, and I replied to this point briefly.
In reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), what we were discussing, as he will appreciate, was the extent of the Midlands area. When one looks at it on the map, and thinks of it in terms of industrial congestion, one realises that right throughout Shropshire and going down the Welsh border that stretch of country in the Midlands region will not feel the full effect of the Bill.
But one must work with the present regions, and I expressed the view that the places in Shropshire, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), are areas which one must take into consideration for industrial development, because of their local circumstances. We can use the Bill to help them if we can squeeze more and more employment out of the over-congested area in the centre of the Midlands region.
I take the point which the hon. Member has raised about Dawley New Town, that this ought to be and will be, we


hope, able to attract not only population but industry away from the overcrowded Midlands.
I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) that I would look into these figures. I do not think that the House would want me to go into detail, but I found a terrible amount of confusion about how many building workers are engaged on building, as distinct from maintenance and repairs, and so on, in the London area, and about how many are actually engaged on office building. The estimates run from a much higher figure than that my hon. Friend gave of 33 per cent.—which I cannot believe—down to 10 per cent.
I do not know whether we can take any guidance from the fact that, of all the orders for new buildings received by contractors during the year 1964, over 22 per cent. by value were for offices. I do not know whether that gives us a clue to the actual number of workers engaged in office building, or what proportion were engaged in speculative office building.
What I should like to do, if the hon. Member would allow me, is to write to him to set out the various calculations that have come my way. I think that that would be the better way of carrying out the undertaking that I gave, because this is becoming something of a struggle—if I may put it like that—between us, and I think it would be a very good idea to get the figures straight. If the House wants me to do so, I can give a lecture for three-quarters of an hour on the statistical information that I have, but I do not think that would be appropriate at this stage.
As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has said, we gave the Bill a thorough examination in Committee. We did it very well and, as he rightly said, very full explanations of the contents of the Bill and of how the Bill would be operated were elicited by probing Amendments and by searching inquiries. The spokesmen in the Committee for the Government fell in with the wishes of hon. Members and produced all the explanations and all the information that they possibly could, so

that the Bill could be sent away this morning as a very well-constructed Measure, designed to carry out the intentions of the Government, which, I know, are shared by hon. Members in all quarters of the House, in that we must do something to control office development in London so that we can stop over-congestion.

Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman has left the question of the figures, but I should just like to put this matter right. So far as I can see—and I have taken a great deal of trouble in working out the calculations—it is impossible to tell what speculative offices have been built. There is no record. Therefore, I am telling the hon. Gentleman that he has no right to make such a statement. So far as the percentage is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary made a great slip of the tongue when he said that 10 per cent. of the total building labour force in Britain was employed in the London region. The figures of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) are even worse.

Mr. Darling: I am prepared to go on arguing this if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so and the House will allow me, but, as I say, on one series of calculations we are told that one-third of the Labour force in London is engaged in office building. I cannot accept that. It does not make sense when one looks around at office building in London as compared with other forms of building.
Anyhow, the Committee proceedings and today's proceedings have been conducted, as the hon. Member for Wycombe said, in a good-humoured way. We have tried to respond to the searching inquiries and the Amendments put down by hon. Members opposite and, in turn, I would like quite sincerely to thank them for their co-operation in Committee, after we got over our first few early battles, in order to get the Bill through in satisfactory time.

2.21 a.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I thank the Minister of State for the kind things that he has said about hon. Members on this side of the House. On the whole, it would be fair to say that, in Committee and today, the House dealt with this matter in an entirely co-operative manner without any animosity.
There has only been one major problem about which we had considerable argument and which I do not think we are entirely satisfied about yet. This, of course, concerns the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in his Second Reading speech. I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but there are two points should make. When one takes the larger figures, one is misinterpreting statistics about the building firms with headquarters in London by crediting to their headquarters staff office building whether in London or anywhere else. That is the only way in which one can reach such a figure as suggested by the hon. Member for Willesden, East.
I ask the Government whether they believe that the hon. Member was right. We do not think that he was. I do not want to introduce a note of animosity at this hour, but it is not good enough that this claim by the hon. Member has not been withdrawn. I appreciate that the Minister of State has said that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) but I would point out, in passing, that this matter was raised in Committee on 2nd March, so that the hon. Gentleman has had some time in which to look into the point.
We accept the wish of the Government that there shall be limitation on the movement of population to the South-East. That is a principle we have stated ever since Second Reading, and we have not deviated from it. From that point of view we welcome the Bill. Nevertheless, we believe that the Bill still needs a great deal of improvement.
It contains no compensation; no return on reasonable expenditure; no special provisions to deal with applications under the Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act; no appeal procedure against decisions by the Board of Trade. The Government have refused to include the

provision suggested by the Franks Committee—that when permission is refused the reasons should be stated. We attach great importance to that and we must emphasise that it is the Government who have decided not to include it. Indeed, there is still no limitation of the power to introduce this Measure to other areas.
On Part II of the Bill, dealing with industrial development certificates, we believe that if the Government pursue the proposal to reduce from 5,000 to 1,000 square feet in the large area they intend to cover, this will stifle a considerable amount of modernisation of industry and the fostering of the growth of smaller firms. Indeed, we believe that the limitation of these smaller industrial estates which have encouraged firms to grow will, in fact, cease, or be very strictly limited.
I do not want to rehash the whole of this, but it must be right and proper that we on this side of the House, although we accept the Bill, should say quite frankly that even now there are these weaknesses which I have enumerated.
To conclude, may I turn to what I hope may be a much more pleasant and reasonable approach. I should like to thank the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They have had a very hard task, not least in keeping their own back benchers quiet in Committee so that they might get the Bill through at even greater speed.
I thank them for the extremely pleasant and reasonable manner in which they have tried to meet the points we have raised, and for that reason I would urge my hon. Friends not to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill now standing committed to a Standing Committee be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Grey.]

2.28 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby): I do not think even at this hour of the morning we should allow this Motion to go through on the nod. This shows a piece of gross incompetence by the Government in the organisation of the business of this House.
The Dangerous Drugs Bill is a consolidation Bill. A consolidation Bill goes through certain procedure with a Joint Committee of both Houses. As a result, it does not need to be committed to a Standing Committee of this House; traditionally it is dealt with by a Committee of the whole House.
For some reason unknown to us on this side of the House, the Government chose to allow this Bill to go to a Standing Committee, and this might have disorganised the whole of the Standing Committee procedure. The Government now have to come back to the House and ask for this mistake to be corrected, and I do not think this ought to be allowed to go through on the nod without recording that this is a piece of gross incompetence by the Government in the organisation of their business.

2.29 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is a slip on the part of the Government in allowing this to go upstairs to a Committee, and I must apologise for that. He is equally right in saying that it is normal for a Consolidation Bill to be taken on the floor of the House. But there are two very good precedents for this under the former Administration—the dates are the 8th December 1953, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and the 3rd December, 1951, the Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary

Under-Secretaries) Bill. I think we both made the same mistake, the present Opposition twice to our once, and so I think honours are even.

Mr. Ian Fraser: I should like to press the Government a little bit further on this, although the Leader of the House has made a clean breast of it. He did mention precedents, but surely this is not a very good argument for the present Government to use.
Although they have followed a number of precedents which took place in the last 13 years, they have always denied that they did any such thing. Surely to claim that this is any justification for this at all is a very weak line for this Government to take. The Government have never shown any propensity for allowing Bills to come to a Committee of the whole House. It will be within the recollection of every hon. Member that the Opposition have had recently to divide against precisely this practice. There was an even more remarkable occasion not long ago when a large body of hon. Members, voting freely, frustrated the Government Whips' intention to send a Bill upstairs to Standing Committee. This is, therefore, a very unusual thing for the Government to have done, and it seems very weak to rely on precedents which have taken place.
I wonder whether there is not a little bit more to it than this. I wonder whether this might not be a case where the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House have been involved, so to speak, on one side of the curtain and the Paymaster General might have been involved on the other side. I wonder very much whether the Paymaster General might come down to the House, if he is not already here, before this debate finishes and add his explanation to that which the Leader of the House has already given of what has occurred on this occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee this day.

GHANA (FINANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

2.33 a.m.

Mr. John Cordle: The matter which I wish to raise on the Adjournment, the opportunity of which I very much welcome, is a far cry from the preceding debate. I propose to talk as briefly as possible, because I know that other hon. Members also wish to speak about the present position of Ghana's finances.
Those of us who have been privileged to visit Ghana on occasions know how warm and friendly, clever and industrious are the people. It is a rich country abounding in natural resources—gold, timber, diamonds, manganese, fisheries and, above all, cocoa. It is, indeed, a country which provides itself with every base for a sound economy.
I approach the subject of Ghana's economic difficulties with great hesitancy, but I believe it to be in the best interests of both the Ghanaians and ourselves that this urgent and important matter should be ventilated and that Her Majesty's Government should give assistance when it is possible to help a member Commonwealth country through her difficulties.
The main factor in reducing Ghana's revenue has been the slump in cocoa prices. In 1963, in collaboration with cocoa-producing countries, we made strenuous efforts towards international agreement on a stable price for cocoa. Ghana's judgment, however, was that this would be against her interests and negotiations broke down, with disastrous results both to Ghana and to other countries dependent largely on cocoa. We would hope that in the interests of all cocoa producers a fresh attempt will be made to secure an international agreement on a stable price of cocoa.
The complete lack of understanding of the gravity of the financial and economic situation in Ghana both at home and in its relationship with the outside world underlined by the statement made on 12th January by President Nkrumah at the formal opening of the budget session of Parliament. He laid the blame for the disastrous fall in Ghana's revenues mainly on the manufacturers and speculators

in the cocoa trade. In the face of this slump in revenue, he announced that budget expenditure would rise to £200 million compared with £144 million in the 1963–64 estimates, and that if credits were available from abroad the figure would be stepped up to £250 million. He completely ignored the fact that even if the indicative price of £190 a ton for cocoa were to be realised the expenditure of even 75 per cent. of the estimated total for the next year could not possibly be sustained.
Taxation proposals were not announced by him, but the law of diminishing returns already took effect during the last two years. Of foreign companies operating in Ghana, some are still making profits, but they are profits which cannot be remitted. Foreign exchange is short and import licences are difficult to get. Overseas companies are finding it difficult to continue their operations.
It may be useful at this point to compare the state of affairs which existed at the time Ghana achieved its independence on 6th March, 1957, with what is believed to be the position at present. Central Government revenue in 1957 was £60 million, and in 1964–65 it had risen to £133 million. Central Government expenditure in 1957 was £52·8 million, quadrupling to £200 million in 1964–65. In extenuation it can be said that since the price of cocoa fell below £220 a ton after 1960 expansion of the economy of Ghana became more difficult. That was the time when the situation should have been drastically reappraised, but expenditure on social services and on development plans have not reflected the unfavourable trend of Ghana's external earnings. Indeed, the expenditure estimates have continued to grow at a galloping pace.
Since 1959 when the last budget surplus was registered resort has been made to deficit financing, and deficits totalling £183 million have been incurred. In the first place, deficits were covered by the redemption of foreign securities and decreases in the cash balances held abroad, but since 1960 they have been financed mainly from internal sources, notably from the issue of Government stocks, Treasury bills and advances from the Central Bank. Another source, suggested by Mr. Nicholas Kaldor, but since


abandoned because of its great unpopularity, was the national development loan raised by means of compulsory savings, but these have not been redeemed.
Between 1959 and 1965 the national debt has increased from £23 million to £237 million, of which £80 million represents the external debt and £157 million the internal. The bulk of the external debt is in the form of suppliers' credits granted under trade agreements and other bilateral arrangements, and it is noteworthy that they are mostly repayable in sterling, dollars or deutschmarks, even though many are with suppliers from the Eastern bloc countries.
Total visible trade, which showed a favourable balance in 1959, deteriorated so greatly that during the period 1960–63 adverse balances amounting to £64 million were incurred. As a corollary Ghana's balance of payments position worsened. In 1951 the deficit on current account was £52 million. Exchange and import controls in 1962 reduced this deficit to £28 million, but it increased again to £46 million in 1963. The seriousness of the position is well reflected by the reduction in foreign exchange reserves.
The pace of economic growth, which advanced at a steady average of 7 per cent. in the years prior to 1961, mainly as a result of expansion in cocoa production, has now come to an almost complete standstill, largely through a slump in cocoa prices. The rate of increase in agricultural production has declined, and there is marked fall in mineral output. Despite the moderate increase in terms of trade in 1963, earnings fell because the volume of exports was less. Ghana shared with Ceylon the unenviable distinction of being the only countries in the Commonwealth whose export earnings failed to increase during 1963.
Like so many other under-developed countries, Ghana has staked heavily on investments in the manufacturing industries to provide import saving goods with a view to reducing the pressure on her external reserves. Although the Government have by their repeated public statements welcomed foreign

capital, their actions have not kept pace with these statements. The confidence which would have been generated by the removal of the restrictions on the repatriation of profits has been undermined by the imposition of a penal surtax on such operations.
In the event, State enterprises have been created which, generally speaking, have failed because of lack of practical ability. Of 32 State-owned corporations in which the Government have invested about £40 million, net accumulated losses to date have been incurred of nearly £14 million, principally by the State Mining Corporation £6 million; Ghana
Airways—£5·1 million; and the State Farm Corporation—£2·4 million.
The development plan lists a number of projects in the public sector which should by now have come into production. A recent survey of industrial development in Ghana has, however, found that most of them are seriously behind schedule, mainly because of difficulties on the civil engineering side.
By contrast, some projects in the private sector are operating efficiently. A soap factory of Unilever is a good example, and the textile printing works at Tema, which will be managed by Unilever and A.D.A.T.I.G., should prosper. A cocoa-processing factory and steel works at Tema have every chance of success, as has a projected glass factory at Tarkwa. In contrast to the losses made by the State-owned enterprises, the joint State-private enterprises showed total accumulated profits of over £600,000 from total investments of £1 million.
The picture which has been presented is serious. This is underlined by The Times report yesterday on the total refusal of leading Western nations providing millions of dollars in emergency loans to alleviate what it describes as a desperate balance of payments situation. So far the U.K. Government has been careful not to offer advice which would no doubt have been resented, but if the Commonwealth is to mean anything, surely the time is upon us when our Government should make a fresh attempt to consult Ghana to seek an opportunity to help her find a way out of these temporary but very serious difficulties.
In the end, the initiative must come from the Ghana Government themselves.


Surely help from Britain, whether from the public or private sector, can be effective only if the Ghana Government can bring their expenditure more nearly into balance with their earnings, and in this I return to my main point. The need is to be able to plan ahead on the basis of a reasonable and stable price for cocoa.
The Ghanaians are members of the Commonwealth in whom we have great. faith. We have confident hope for their future. They seek, as they told us, trade in preference to aid. They do not seek charity. I therefore sincerely beg Her Majesty's Government to do everything they can to tackle the main problem, and that is to secure an international agreement on stable cocoa prices.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I must declare an interest as a director of a company which trades both in and with Ghana, that country of pleasant people where I have many fiends, a country naturally richer than any purely African country south of the Sahara. It is an independent Common-wealth country and I would not wish to go in detail into what are its private affairs. We are all guilty at times of spending not all that wisely, and if banks suddenly foreclosed on individuals, companies or countries we might all find ourselves in a difficult situation.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government may be able to meet some of the points so very sensibly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle). Private enterprise, of course, has been hit in Ghana by import rationing and heavy taxation, but so might it be by the Little England, anti-developing Commonwealth aspect of our recent Budget. My hon. Friend is perfectly right when he lays emphasis on cocoa. I remember the Korean boom in cocoa when it reached nearly £500 a ton. In 1954 the average price was £467 10s. The drop in price has been really staggering. Only a few months ago it was over £200. Now it is under £130, and that in depreciated £s. Therefore, whatever Her Majesty's Government can do to get the Western world to help in this cocoa crisis I believe not only Ghana but other countries in the developing world would be extremely grateful.
Unfortunately we cannot very easily have a Commonwealth cocoa agreement. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement has enabled the West Indian islanders and others to hold their heads high, but we take no more than 7½ per cent. of the world cocoa production. Therefore, if we can get our friends in Europe and the United States and the U.S.S.R. to come into some worldwide agreement, we will do much to prevent not only Ghana but Western Nigeria from suffering.
The Finance Minister of Western Nigeria was reported as saying in his Budget speech not long ago:
Consumer countries were bent on exploiting the poverty and scanty resources of producer countries to their own advantage.
Let us show that this is untrue. My hon. Friend referred to the fact-finding mission which was reported in the dispatch from Washington in The Times of yesterday. I hope that if the International Monetary Fund is to be called upon to help, Her Majesty's Government will try to support it to the full.

2.50 a.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Cordle) for indicating some of the themes that he was going to follow in his speech. I cannot, however, endorse many of the remarks that he has made about the domestic policy of the Government of Ghana. It is a tradition of this House that we should exercise self-restraint in discussing the domestic affairs of other countries. Most hon. Members opposite would refrain from criticising in this House the internal affairs of Peru, France or the United States. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East has, upon this occasion, raised many matters which are solely the domestic concern of the Government of Ghana. Such remarks can have most unfortunate consequences upon Ghana's relations with this country. A Commonwealth country whose domestic affairs are discussed in this way in this House is given the impression that one of the results of membership of the Commonwealth is that it is criticised by hon. Members in a way in which it would not be criticised if it were a foreign country. I hope, therefore, that the speech of the hon. Member does not create this impression.
Having said that, however, I think that the House is fully entitled to concern itself with matters affecting British interests in other countries, whether they be inside or outside the Commonwealth. I therefore welcome those passages in which hon. Members opposite drew our attention to the difficulties of British businesses operating in Ghana and of British exporters in Ghana. The immediate cause of these difficulties is Ghana's acute balance of payments problem. There is no doubt that her difficulties have been exacerbated by her decision, in co-operation with other members of the Cocoa Producers Alliance, to refrain from selling her cocoa for several months. The attempt to hold up prices by this means failed and the producers resumed selling in February, but one effect has been that Ghana is only now receiving from abroad income which otherwise she would have received several months earlier.
Both hon. Members have referred to the importance of cocoa to the economy of Ghana. It is true that the Commonwealth produces more than half of the world's cocoa, but this country consumes only about 10 per cent. of world production and we are not able to exercise a major influence over world market prices. That is one of the facts of life that we must face. An agreement on the lines of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement would not be practicable, because Britain consumes a much smaller proportion of Commonwealth exports of cocoa than she does of their exports of sugar. Only an international as distinct from a Commonwealth agreement in respect of cocoa could give Commonwealth cocoa producers a useful measure of reassurance. The British Government greatly regret the failure in 1963 to arrive at a satisfactory international cocoa agreement.
Turning to British economic interests in Ghana, British exporters to Ghana have been faced with difficulties both in securing payment for past exports to Ghana and in obtaining import licences and exchange authorisations for further exports. The British Government fully recognise that these exporters have reason to be dissatisfied with Ghana's administrative procedures. Among the valid criticisms which have been made of the Ghanaian

procedures are the cumbrousness and uncertainty of the licensing arrangements. Britain has been a major supplier in the past of Ghana's imports and is therefore one of the main sufferers by these arrangements and from the deliberate policy of the Ghana Government in seeking to shift the pattern of its external trade in favour of the countries of Eastern Europe, with whom she has negotiated barter agreements. We have also been disturbed in recent weeks to learn of an increasing tendency to discriminate in favour of Ghana shipping and the Ghana Insurance Corporation to the detriment of British interests in these two industries.
Hon. Members will want to know what the British Government are doing to help in this situation. The British Government have been giving all the help they can to British exporters and British firms operating in Ghana. First, I would mention that the Board of Trade is always prepared to advise exporters about the facts of the situation in a country overseas. Moreover, the facilities of the Exports Credit Guarantee Department continue to be available to British exporters for normal short-term cover. E.C.G.D. have been particularly helpful to British exporters in meeting all requests for cover up to 180 days. British exporters who do not take advantage of the facilities and advice which E.C.G.D. have to offer have largely themselves to blame if they are unable to secure any money for their goods. E.C.G.D. make a very valuable contribution. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), with his experience in my present office, will readily agree with me on that.
Secondly, the British High Commissioner in Accra has made clear to the Ghana Government our concern about difficulties British exporters are facing in securing payments from Ghana. Our High Commissioner's Office has received in the last 15 months more than 370 complaints from British firms and has actively pursued these cases with the Ghana Government. Unforunately, owing to the severity of the shortage of foreign exchange, these representations have not been successful so far in about half of the cases, but we have every expectation of an improvement in the situation shortly. In the last few days there has been an announcement by the


Ghana Government which indicates that, with the inflow of foreign exchange resulting from the resumption of cocoa sales, it is hoped to be able to clear up within the next few weeks the greater part of this outstanding short-term debt. I am sure that this will be very welcome news to hon. Members.
By this means it appears likely that Ghana will succeed within the next few months in overcoming her immediate need for cash to meet immediate demands for foreign exchange. But Ghana is faced with having to find this year and in future years very large sums of foreign exchange to meet the annual servicing of her medium-term debt. If her medium-term difficulties cannot be overcome she will face further short-term cash difficulties such as she has faced recently.
The British Government have, therefore, advised the Ghana Government that the proper course was for the latter to approach the International Monetary Fund because the problem was too big to

be faced by Britain or by another single country in the West on its own. I am happy to learn that the Ghana Government have accepted this advice and that a mission from the Fund will be visiting Ghana shortly.
As friends of the people of Ghana, whom we admire as hardworking and industrious partners in the Commonwealth, we feel sure that this is the right and proper course for Ghana to follow. We feel sure that she will receive from the International Monetary Fund, the best possible advice upon what she needs, to do to overcome her current difficulties, and we are confident that if that advice is heeded the way ahead will be clear for her to achieve the great economic potential we all know her to possess.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock a.m.